Find a Lawyer

Revision Side No. 376 of 1957‑58, decided on 2nd December 1958, District Sargodha.

S. 16---‑Revision ---Limitation‑Board will not entertain revision petition as a rule after lapse of period prescribed for preferring appeals i.e., 90 days.

This is a second revision against the order of the Additional Commissioner of Peshawar and Dera Ismail Khan Divisions dated 12‑3‑1958. It has arisen out of partition proceedings relating to Shamilat land of village Peloo Wains, Tahsil Khushab, District Sargodha.

The mode of partition was drawn up on 23‑6‑1952 and sanctioned on 12‑2‑1954. Possession was delivered to the parties in July 1954. The petitioner's contention is that he was not made a party to the proceedings and had no knowledge of the case while his share has been transferred, from the land in his possession, to another lot some three miles away. He preferred a revision petition before the Commissioner on 10‑3‑1955. The Commissioner dismissed the revision on the ground that it was time‑barred. The petitioner has now filed the second revision.

The learned Advocates have fully argued the question of limitation on the basis of case‑law The older view no doubt was 2 P R 1889, (Rev.) that the Financial Commissioner was competent to exercise his powers of revision even after the lapse of 3 years; but in subsequent cases P L D 1950 Pb. (Rev.) 31; P L D 1950 Pb. (Rev.) 1214 and P L D 1950 Ph. (Rev.) 77, it has been consist ently held that, though no period of limitation is prescribed for al revision petition, the Financial Commissioner will refuse to interfere where it is made after the period assigned for an appeal, viz. 90 days. The power of the Financial Commissioner to extend the period of limitation remains, but he must insist on having the strongest reasons to grant this extension.

The petitioner's plea is that he remained wholly ignorant of the partition proceedings although the proceedings went on for more than two years and although, according to his order dated 12‑2‑1954, the learned Assistant Collector had effected service on the co‑sharers by proclamation (evidently according to the provisions of section 22 of Land Revenue Act) while sanctioning the partition on 12‑2‑1954. What is amazing, however, is that in setting out his grounds for revision before the Commissioner he explained the cause of delay in para. 6 as follows:‑

"That the petitioners were pursuing their remedies before the other officers and also in the Civil Court; this has caused delay in filing the revision petition in this Hon'ble Court."

In the face of this clear admission it is now a little too much to expect this Court to believe that the petitioner had no knowledge of the partition proceedings at any stage prior to 10‑3‑1955.

I find no justification whatsoever for interference and the revision is dismissed.

A. H. Petition 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.