Find a Lawyer

Civil Review Petition No. 41 of 1974, decided on 30th'October 1975.

(On review from the judgment of this Court, dated 21‑6‑1974, in Civil Petition No. 34 of 1974).

(a) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)---

‑‑ S. 5‑‑Delay, condonation of No particulars given, as to date when minor attained majority or became aware of rue facts Delay sought to be condoned on ground of party being a minor and unaware of facts, held

rightly confused to be condoned.

‑‑ S. 5‑Delay, condonation of Vested rights being acquired by other party, such rights could not by taken away

unless valid ground made out for condonation of delay axed pact day's delay satisfactorily explained.

(c) Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act (XII of 1957)--

‑‑ S. 22- Petitioner given opportunity Custodian to prove her claim but failing to avail such opportunity and keeping silent for over 15 years ‑‑No proof being adduced of her being prevented from further agitating matter and taking diligent steps to protect her interests in property, petitioner, held bound to fail.

Raja Muhammad Muzaffar. Hussain, Advocate instructed by S. Wajid Hussain (absent) Advocate‑.on‑Record for petitioner.

Nemo for Respondent

Date of hearing: 30th October 1975.

C. J.‑ This an application for the review of an order of this Court dismissing Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 34 of 1974.

Learned counsel appearing its support of the petition contends that there was no dispute that Nihal Singh, the original owner of the property, embraced Islam and continued to remain in Pakistan and, therefore, the order of the Deputy Custodian, recommending the confirmation of his order declaring the property to be non‑evacuee, should have been confirmed the custodian, to whom the case vas referred merely because the value exceeded Rs. 5,000. The mother of tree petitioner, however, appeared before tire Deputy Custodian‑ General to whom the case was referred, on 1‑12‑1956, and under compulsion applied foray withdrawal of the claim. She had also, it appears, stated that the petitioner was not the daughter of Nihal Singh.

Before the Deputy Custodian‑General, it was suggested that the lady, who bad appeared before him and claim to be Mst. Sardar Begum, was a fictitious person. " Custodian, General gave time to produce the real Sardar Begum been the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner neither appeared on the appointed date nor produced the real Sardar Begum. It was in these circumstances that the confirmation was refused on the 6^th February 1957.

After this, no further step was taken by the petitioner for 15 years. It was only in 1973 that a revision was filed before the Custodian. He dismissed this in limine on the 17th March 1973. The petitioner went to the High Court in the Writ jurisdiction, but the writ petition was also dismissed in limine.

Before this Court, it was sought to be contended at the time of the hearing of the leave application, firstly, that the petitioner being a minor 1956, when Mist. Sardar Begam relinquished her claim, was not aware of the true position. Unfortunately, since no particulars were given as to the date when she attained majority or when she became aware of the true facts; this Court held drat the High Court was hot wrong in holding that the Custodian had rightly refused to condone such inordinate delay.

Her further contention that, she was not bound by the admissions of the said alleged Sardar Begum, was also repelled earl the grouted that, in the meantime, other persons bad acquired vested rights in these lands and these rights could not be taken away unless valid grounds were made out for the condonation of the civil

matter, each day's delay has to be satisfactorily explained.

Learned counsel appearing in support of this support of this review application contends that this Court was wrong in taking the view that the petitioner s right could be defeated ground of delay when there is no dispute that Nihal Singh was not an evacuee. This argument does not take note of the fact that the status of the petitioner herself was in challenge. The allegation of Mst. Sardar Begum was that she was not the Daughter of Nihal Singh. In the circumstances, unless it was established that she was the daughter of Nihal Singh, she would have no locus, standi to claim this property.

An opportunity given was given to her by the Deputy Custodian‑General to prove her claim. She failed to avail of that opportunity and then kept silent for over 15 years till 1973. In tine absence of proof that she was: prevented from further agitating this matter and taking diligent steps to protect her interests in the property, it is she who was bound to fail.

In the circumstances, we found ground for reviewing our previous. This petition is accordingly 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.