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.
Before Shameem Hussain Kadri, J
MUHAMMAD SHARIF AND 3 others -Petitioners
versus
SULEMAN AND 4others -Respondents
Writ Petition No. 1228/11 of 1974, decided on 17th March 1980.
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-
-- O. XXII, r. 3-Legal.representatives, impleading of-Order XXII, r. 3, C. P. C., held, applicable only to suits and appeals and not to revisions.
Khan Sahib Khan Muhammad Saadat All. Khan v. The Administrator, Corporation of City of Lahore P L D 1949 Lah. 541 and Muhammad Swaleh another v. Messrs United Grain 8c Fodder Agencies P L D 1964 S C 97 rel.
(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-
S. 151-Inherent powers of Court-Recall of order-Court, held, has inherent power to pass order and recall it-General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S. 21.
Pakistan v. Muhammad Himayatullah Farukhi P L D 1969 S C 407 rel.
(c) Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLV I( of 1958)-
_..- S. 23(1)(f)-Legal representatives, impleading of-Legal representa tives not brought on record-Order of abatement passed by Settlement Commissioner-Subsequent order passed refusing to set aside order of abatement-Order of abatement, held, without lawful authority-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXII, r. 3.
Rao Dastgir Ahmad Khan for Petitioner.
Talib H. Rizvi for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
Nemo for Respondents Nos. 3 to 5.
Dates of hearing : 16th and 17th March, 198 1
The petitioners have thrown challenge to an order passed by the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner dated 24th April 1974, whereby the refused to set aside the order of abatement passed by his predecessor on 9th April 1970, on the ground that the petitioners" father had died in December 1969, but his legal representatives were not brought on the record.
2. The sole question for determination is whether the order passed on 9th April 1970, as well as the order dated 24th April 1974, are with juris diction. According to section 23(1)(f) of the Displaced Persons (Land Settle ment Act, 1958, the legal representatives of the deceased could be brought on the record in accordance with the provision of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Order XXII, rule 3, C. P. C. is applicable only to suits and appeals and not revisions. Reliance is placed on a Full Bench judgment reported ash Khan Sahib Khan Muhammad Saadat AU Khan v. The Administrator Corpora tion of City of Lahore (P L D 1949 Lah.541) and Muhammad Swalah and another v. Messrs Uniicd Grain and Fodder Agencies (P L D 1964 S C 97). In the latter case the period of limitation was found to be applicable under Article 181 and not Article 176 of the Limitation Act.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that the Legislature purposely withheld the word revision' from section 23(1) of the Displaced persons (Land Settlement) Act since only enquiry on hearing an appeal is mentioned -therein. As such it was contended that this provision shall not be attracted. However; the Court has inherent power to pass an order and recall it. Reliance is placed on Pakistan v. Muhammad Himayatullah Farukhi PLD1969SC407. In view of the law referred to above I feel inclined to hold that the order of abatement was not passed with lawful authority by the Settlement Commissioner. Equally the subsequent order was passed in wrongful exercise of jurisdiction, for, the Settlement Commissioner has not given reasons in passing suck: an order.
4. For the foregoing reasons the petition succeeds. The orders are quashed. The revision shall be pending and shall be decided by the competent Authority. Parties are reft to bear their own costs..
K.M.A. Appeal allowed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer