Find a Lawyer

Letters Patent Appeal No. 785 of 1966, decided on 17th May 1968.

S. S‑Condonation of delay Condonation cannot be presumed upon mere noting in order‑Authority concerned duty bound to apply its mind to cause of delay and exercise discretion on sound judicial principles.

Azmat Ali v. Chief Settlement Commissioner P L D 1964 S C 260 and Mumtaz Khan v. Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner P L D 1966 S C 276 ref.

Sched., para. I, read with Settlement Manual (Old Edn.), p. 92‑Several occupants of house, upon joint agree ment, applying jointly for transfer of portions in their respec tive possession‑Settlement Authorities issuing separate P. T. Os. in respect of respective portions in possession of each‑Held, it could not be urged that such order of transfer was in any way not joint order of transfer.

Instructions cannot act retros pectively so as to take away vested right of parties.

S. 19‑Right of appeal against consent order‑ Words "aggrieved party" used in S. 19 imply that appeal can be filed by an aggrieved person only‑No person in law can be said to be aggrieved by an order passed on basis of his own consent No right of appeal against order of transfer of property passed on basis of consent of parties.

Sched., para. I‑Estoppel, principles of-- Person having applied for transfer of I/4th portion of house to his possession and having accepted transfer thereof and obtained neces sary documents and not challenging order of transfer within reasonable time‑Held, clearly estopped from asking transfer of remaining portion in possession of other occupant.

Altaf Hussain v. Shabbir Hussain P L D 1961 Lah. 449 ; Mst. Jehan Ara Begum v. Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner P L D 1963 Kar. 726; Abdul Majid Shaida v. Mst. Noor Jehan P L D 1967 S C 221; Amir Din v. Muhammad Siddiq P L D 1966 Lah. 416; Mst. Fazal Bibi v. Ibrahim P L D 1966 Lah. 1065 and Muhammad Hanif v. The Settlement and Rehabi litation Commissi