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 No. 12 of 1946‑47, decided on 26th February 1948, from the order of Commissioner, Multan Division, dated 14th May 1946.
‑Section 115‑No revision lies, when appeal to Commissioner was competent.
The proper remedy open to the petitioner was to file a second appeal and not a revision to the Commissioner as according to section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code a revision lies only in cases in which no appeal lies.
, Section 84‑None of the grounds mentioned in section 115 Civil Procedure Code in existence--- Financial Commissioner will not interfere in revision.
Facts :‑Suit for cancellation of notice of ejectment dismissed by Collector Ist grade, Montgomery. On appeal by plaintiff, the Collector remanded the case to the lower court for fresh decision in respect of issue No.4
The plaintiff filed a revision with the Commissioner, who ordered that the revision petition be rejected.
Plaintiff applied to Financial Commissioner for revision of Commis sioner's order.
Abdul Aziz, for the Petitioner.
Fazal Ilahi, for the Respondent.
In a suit brought by we present petitioner, Ali Bakhsh, to contest his liability to ejectment from land, measuring 197 Kanals 16 Marlas, bearing square No. 53, Killas 1 to 4, 5/1, 5/2, 6 to 27 in Chak No. 99/6 R, Tahsil Montgomery. The Assistant Collector, 1st grade, framed the following four issues :‑
(1) Whether Ali Bakhsh had a legal right for being in possession of the land in suit.
(2) Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the plaintiff' and defendant.
(3) Whether defendant has the right to get issued a notice of eject ment against the plaintiff.
(4) Whether the plaintiff has made improvements on the land in suit, if so, to what compensation he is entitled.
By his order, dated the 30th October 1944, the Assistant Collector dismissed the suit with costs.
On appeal, the Collector Montgomery, by an order, dated the 19th February 1945, upheld the order of the lower court on other points, but remanded the case for a fresh decision with regard to issue No. 4 regarding compensation.
The petitioner Ali Bakhsh then moved the Commissioner, Multan Division, on revision side, but the Commissioner rejected the application as it was held to be time‑barred and insufficiently stamped.
In this revision petition before me the respondent's counsel has raised a preliminary objection that the petition is not competent. I am afraid I must accept that contention. It is admitted that even the revision application before the Commissioner did not lie. The proper remedy open to the petitioner was to file a second appeal to the Commissioner, as according to section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code a revision lies only, in cases in which no appeal lies. Again the Commissioner has rejected the revision petition on grounds of limitation and insufficient court‑fee. It is not understood how the Financial Commissioner can interfere in that order under section 84 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887. That section lays down that the Financial Commissioner may interfere with the proceedings or the order or decree on any ground on which the High Court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction may, under the law for the time being in force, interfere with the proceedings or an order or decree of a Civil Court. The law under which the High Court may interfere in exercise of its powers of revision is laid down in section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. None of the grounds mentioned in that section appears to exist in the present case justifying an interference in the Commissioner's order. I dismiss this application for revision.
K. M. A. Revisions dismissed
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer