2007 PLP 1413 (MLD)

EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, J.

Shahzada Aman-I-Room and others, petitioners in writ petitions Nos. 327, 328 and 1455 of 2044 have impugned the orders, dated 20-3-2003 of the learned Senior Member Board of Revenue whereby he dismissed the revision petitions filed by the petitioners and upheld the orders dismissing their appeals. Since a common question of law is involved in these petitions, they are disposed of by this single judgment.

2. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned appellate Court without adverting to the .merits of the case dismissed the appeals filed by the petitioners on the sole ground that they were not accompanied by the attested copies of the impugned mutations. The learned counsel next submitted that when it is not requirement of section 161 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act that the memorandum of appeal be accompanied by an attested copy of the order impugned, it could not have been dismissed by invoking the application of Rule 1 of Order XLI of the C.P.C.

3. As against that the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents by referring to the case of Ghulam Muhammad v. Sardar Muhammad (PLD (Revenue) 1956 West Pakistan 32) argued that where memorandum of appeal was not accompanied by a copy of the order impugned and no prayer was made for its being dispensed with, it was rightly dismissed. The learned counsel by referring to Rule 3 sub-rule (2) of the West Pakistan Board of Revenue (Conduct of Appeals and Revisions) Rules, 1959 argued that where the Clerk of Court after examining the record pointed out that the appeal was not accompanied by the certified copies of the impugned orders, the Court had no other option but to dismiss it when .this deficiency was not made up even -after the lapse of seven years.

4. We have gone through the record carefully and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

5. Once after hearnig the appeals in motion, the record of the lower forum was summoned, the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner should not have dismissed them without adverting to the merits of the case simply because they were not accompanied by the attested copies of the impugned orders. The rules referred to above have no application to the appeals before the lower forums as they are exclusively meant for appeals and revisions before the Board of Revenue. Applicability of the provisions of C.P.C. to the proceedings before the Courts of Revenue hierarchy will also do little to advance the case of the respondents as none of its provisions in general and Rule 1 of Order XLI of the C.P.C. in particular envisages the dismissal of appeal in any such eventuality. Similarly the argument addressed on the strength of the judgment rendered in the case of Ghulam Muhammad v. Sardar Muhammad supra would not deter this Court from setting aside an order passed on hyper-technical ground firstly because it is not binding on us and secondly because no fetish of technicalities can be made to an extent where the actual purpose behind them is relegated to oblivion and only they are allowed to reign supreme. The moreso when decision on merits is the most cherished goal of law. For the reasons discussed above, we allow these petitions, set aside all the impugned orders on a cost of Rs.1000 in each petition and send the case back to the Court of learned D.R.O. for decision afresh in accordance with law. H.B.T./129/P?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petitions allowed.