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. 9 of 1954‑55, decided on 21st February 1954, District Montgomery.
S. 15‑Review Practice of Financial Commissioner‑Only in case of omission or error patent on face of record.
Maqbool Elahi, Appellant in person.
‑This is a review application against the order dated 25th June, 1954, passed by my learned pre decessor by which he set aside the allotment on tree planting conditions made to the petitioner and restored the land held by the original grantees. The main contention that has been urged before me is that the original grantees had made continuous default in carrying out the conditions of the grant, which was made more than thirty years ago and the grant should not have been restored to them. This is not a point on which a review should ordinarily be granted. The practice of the Financial Commissioner in granting reviews has been uniformly to the effect that reviews are generally allowed only if there is an omission or an error patent on' the face of the record. The question of fact now raised was gone into by my learned predecessor and be came to a definite conclusion adverse to the petitioner. Even if I held to the contrary this would not justify a review. I, therefore, decline to interfere and reject this application.
A. H. Application rejected.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer