Find a Lawyer

Revision No. 52 of 1961‑62, decided on 27th November 1963, District Multan.

------

---‑Filing of as many revisions as there are parties and at different times‑Not contemplated by S. 13, West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance (VI of 1960).

S. 8 --Review‑Limitation‑Review petition filed after 148 days‑Delay not condoned‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 5‑Not appli cable to West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act (XI of 1957).

Abdul Khaliq for Petitioner.

This revision has been filed against an order dated the 14th of December 1962, passed by the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation), Multan, whereby he rejected the revision filed by the petitioner.

2. Before the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) there were four respondents, but the petitioner filed the revision before me against Sardar Muhammad respondent only. This was disposed of by me on the 30th April 1963, whereby the petitioner's revision was dismissed. The petitioner has now brought up fresh revision citing the other three respondents as parties.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He has suggested that I should take action under section 13 of the West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960. This was actually done at the instance of the petitioner and after examining the position in detail the petition was rejected. At that time the petitioner did not implead the other. respondents as parties and so it was presumed that he did not seek any remedy against them. Moreover, I find that granting the request of the petitioner would be laying down a principle in which the person aggrieved can file as many revisions as there are parties and at different times. This could not be the intention of section 13 of West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960.

4. In the alternative the learned counsel for the petitioner has suggested that the revision be treated as a review. My order was passed on the 30th April 1963. The examination of the copy of my order produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner shows that the application for copy was made on the 9th of May 1963 and a copy was actually supplied on the 21st of May 1963. The period spent for obtaining the copy is, therefore, 13 days. Excluding this period the present review would be deemed to have been filed after the expiry of 148 days. The period of limitation under section 8 of the Board of Revenue Act, is 90 days. Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable to the Board of Revenue Act and, therefore it is not possible to condone the delay. Even if this application is treated as a review, it would be time‑barred. In these circumstances, revision fails and is dismissed hereby.

S. Q. Revision dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.