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. 1652 of 1985, decided on 2nd June, 1985.
---Art, 199--Natural justice, principle of--Maxim: Audi alteram partem (no man shall be condemned unheard)--Violation of--Contention of petitioners that they were not impleaded as party to revision petition previously filed by respondents before Member, Board of Revenue and were condemned unheard--Case sent back with consent of counsel of both parties to Member, Board of Revenue for holding inquiry as to whether or not petitioners were party to revision petition filed previously by respondents and that they were served and heard in accordance with law.--[Maxim].
Sh. Naveed Shahryar for Petitioners.
Ch. Sabir Nasim for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
Date of hearing: 2nd June, 1985.
In pursuance of order dated 24-4-1985, notices were sent to all the respondents. Respondents Nos. 1 and-2 are present in person and they are also represented by a counsel. On behalf of respondents Nos. 49, 50 and 51, Ghulam Hussain Patwari, has entered appearance, So far as the remaining respondents, are concerned, notices sent to them by registered post, have not been received back as unserved. The presumption is, that they have been served. No one appears on, their behalf. They are, therefore, proceeded against ex parte.
2. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the available record perused.
3. The main grievance brought by the petitioners before this Court, through this writ petition, is that they were not impleaded as a party to the revision petition filed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2, before the learned Member Board of Revenue from the Additional Commissioner's order dated 16-11-1981 and thus, they have been condemned unheard. Accordingly, the order dated 25-9-1983, whereby the revision petition was accepted, is sought to be removed as having been passed behind the back of the petitioners. It is further submitted that the dismissal of the petitioner's review petition (295/83) by the learned Member Board of Revenue, under his order dated 12-9-1984 is also illegal as he did not advert to the vital issue, that the petitioners were condemned unheard in the revision petition.
4. These contentions are controverted by the learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and he categorically asserts that the petitioner were party to the revision petition and their names figure as respondents Nos. 10, 12 and 25 in the title of the revision petition. He contends that they were served and were even heard.
5. From the perusal of the title of the revision petition it transpires that the father's name of Muhammad Hayat, respondent shown at Serial No. 10, is not mentioned therein. Muhammad respondent, figuring at Serial No. 12, though shown to be the son of Maulo, but according to the petitioner's learned counsel is a different person. Likewise, Ahmad whose name is entered as respondent No. 25, is said to be not petitioner No.2 but some other 'Ahmad'.
6. Faced with this situation, and to avoid prolongation of this litigation, without prejudice to the respondents' rights in the main case, their learned counsel has no objection if the case is sent back to the learned Member Board of Revenue for holding an inquiry as to whether or not, the petitioners were party to the revision petition are they were served in accordance with law.
7. As a matter of fact, the learned counsel for both parties agree that the matter may be referred to the learned Member Board of Revenue and if after hearing them and examining the relevant record, he comes to the conclusion that the petitioners were party to the revision petition A and were served and heard In accordance with low, then the under dated 12-9-1984, dismissing their review petition hall hold the field. Conversely, if it is found by him that they were not arrayed as respondents in the revision petition and consequently hearing was not given to them, then the order dismissing their review petition shall stand set aside and the same shall be disposed of afresh in accordance with law. I order accordingly. The learned Member Board of Revenue shall decide the case expeditiously preferably within a period of 2 months. The parties are directed to appear before him on 24-6-1985. The writ petition is disposed of with no order as to costs.
H.B.T. Order accordingly.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer