P L D 1966 W (PLP)
ALLAH DITTA‑Petitioner Versus IJAZ ALI‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1966 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | I. U. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | ALLAH DITTA‑Petitioner Versus IJAZ ALI‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1966 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1966 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: I. U. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1966 W (PLP) (ALLAH DITTA‑Petitioner Versus IJAZ ALI‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
Revision‑Petition filed after 90 days ‑ No ground for condoning delay‑Revision to be rejected as time‑barred. Malik Sardar Ahmad for‑Petitioner.
Judgment & Decree
Revision No. 683 of 1964‑65, decided on 26th January 1966. Revision‑Petition filed after 90 days ‑ No ground for condoning delay‑Revision to be rejected as time‑barred. Malik Sardar Ahmad for‑Petitioner. This is a revision filed against an order dated the 15th of August 1964, passed by Commissioner, Multan Division. Even excluding the period spent in obtaining copies, the revision was filed after the expiry of more than 90 days. It is true that the Statute has not provided any period of limitation but the Financial Commissioners as well as the Board of Revenue have consistently laid down that they will refuse to interfere in revision if an application is made after the expiry of 90 days. In this case, no application for condonation of delay was made at all. In these circumstances, I reject the revision as time‑barred. K. M. A. Revision rejected.