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.
Writ Petition No. 3426 of 1978, decided on 17th October, 1981.
‑ R. 7‑Limitation‑Period of 15 days provided for revision Revision petition filed beyond 15 days, rightly, held, time‑barred. [Limitation‑Revision civil].
Sardar Atta Ullah for Petitioners.
C. M. Latif Rawn for Respondent No. 1.
Nemo for the Remaining Respondents.
Date of hearing : 17th October, 1981.
The petitioners who are tenants were ejected by the Assistant Commissioner, vide his order dated 2nd March, 1978 under the Punjab Land Reforms (Procedure of Ejectment Suits) Rules, 1977. They took a time barred appeal before the Additional Commissioner. He treated the same as a revision petition and dismissed it as barred by time and for the reason that it was not sufficiently stamped, under rule 7 of the above said; Rules.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel that as the Additional Commissioner had treated the petitioners' appeal as revision petition, he could not have dismissed the same. This contention has no force, as rule 7 of the Rules does provide' 15 days even for a revision petition for an aggrieved person. Undoubtedly, the revision petition was also beyond that. period. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the order of the Additional Commissioner is without lawful authority.
This petition, therefore, has no merit and is dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
M. A. K. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer