Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Revision Side No. 131 of 1952‑53, decided on 27th April 1953 from District Muzaffargarh:
Punjab Revenue Act (XVII of 1887), S. 118 (2)‑Time limit for appeal should be strictly observed‑Mere minority of appellants no good ground for interference in appeal.
In partition cases the time‑limit for appeals against mode of partition has to be strictly observed. The Financial Com missioner will decline to interfere in revision even if the aggrieved parties be minors, provided their interests were sufficiently protected.
‑Present Faiz Bakhsh with counsel for petitioners Ch. Ferozuddin, Advocate. Respon dent and his counsel not present:
The mode of partition in this case was sanctioned oh 15th August, 1948. Under section 118 (2) of the Land Revenue Act an appeal should have been preferred within 15 days. The partition proceedings were completed on 23rd March, 1949. Faiz Bakhsh was present on that date. The first appeal against the mode of partition was preferred on 22nd April, 1949. It was alleged that the petitioners were minors on the date the mode of partition was sanctioned. As pointed out by the learned Commissioner the minor's interests were sufficiently protected. Another point raised is that partition could not be sanctioned as some of the parties were non‑Muslims. This does not affect the interests of the petitioners. In partition cases the time limit for a appeals against mode of partition has to be strictly observed.
I should not interfere in revision in such cases.
The petition is rejected.
Announced.
A. H. Petition rejected.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer