1987 PLP 810 (SCMR)
ALLAH BAKHSH and another‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD ISMAIL and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 810 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and Saad Saood Jan, J |
| Parties | ALLAH BAKHSH and another‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD ISMAIL and others‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 810 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 810 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Saad Saood Jan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 810 (SCMR) (ALLAH BAKHSH and another‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD ISMAIL and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Sh. Inayat Ali, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.
- Mr. A.R. Arshad, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 1.
- Nemo for Respondents
- Date of hearing: 1st March, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, dated 26‑2‑1983 in Writ Petition No. 402 of 1980) (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑Writ jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑Petitioners' failure to avail themselves of remedy before competent forum within prescribed time, held, was itself sufficient ground for dismissal of constitutional petition. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) ‑‑‑Arts. 185(3) 6 199‑‑ Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.5‑‑Writ jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑Limitation‑‑Condonation of delay‑‑Writ petition assailing order of Board of Revenue refusing to condone delay, dismissed‑‑Order impugned‑‑ Held: Question whether a sufficient cause for condonation of delay had been shown was one for Board of Revenue to decide‑‑Decision of Board of Revenue in this regard could not ordinarily be challenged in writ jurisdiction‑‑Leave to appeal refused. (c) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Leave to appeal, grant of‑‑Concurrent finding on question of fact‑‑Supreme Court declined to interfere with concurrent finding of Collector and Additional Commissioner which, after further examination, was confirmed by High Court. Nos. 2 to 4.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Leave to appeal, grant of‑‑Concurrent finding on question of fact‑‑Supreme Court declined to interfere with concurrent finding of Collector and Additional Commissioner which, after further examination, was confirmed by High Court. Sh. Inayat Ali, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners. Mr. A.R. Arshad, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No.
1. Nemo for Respondents Nos. 2 to
4. Date of hearing: 1st March, 1987. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J‑‑This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the judgment, dated 26‑2‑1983 of the Lahore High Court dismissing the constitutional petition of the petitioners.
2. Respondent No.1 filed a suit for pre‑emption in respect of a sale of agricultural land. He claimed that he was the tenant in the land covered by the sale. The suit was decreed by the Collector. The petitioners who were the vendees preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner. The appeal was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner who upheld the finding of the Collector with regard to the status of respondent No.1 in the land in question. The petitioners then filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue. It was dismissed on the ground that it had been preferred after the prescribed time. The petitioners invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to challenge the legality of the decree passed in favour of respondent No.1. It was dismissed by a learned Single Judge. They now seek leave to appeal from this Court.
3. It is to be noticed that the petitioners had a remedy before the Board of Revenue. They did not avail of it within the prescribed time. This by itself was a sufficient ground for the dismissal of the constitutional petition filed by them in the High Court. 4.Learned counsel for the petitioners states that they had moved an application before the Board of Revenue for condonation of the delay but it was illegally rejected by the Board. A copy of the said application has not been placed on the record. On our inquiry learned counsel stated that the explanation offered in support of the prayer for condonation of the delay was that the petitioners' counsel before the Board had misunderstood the provisions with regard to the time prescribed for filing of a revision petition. The question whether sufficient cause for condonation of the delay had been shown was one for the Board to decide. Its decision in this regard could not ordinarily be challenged in writ jurisdiction. 5.Learned counsel then contended that respondent No.1 was not tenant and as such the revenue Courts were not competent to entertain his suit. It is difficult to accept this contention in view of the concurrent finding of the Collector and the Additional Commissioner which after further examination was confirmed by the High Court. 6.This petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed. M.I./A‑19/S Petition dismissed.