Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
ROR No.163 of 1981, decided on 4th July, 1983.
‑‑‑Para. 25‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 5‑‑West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), S. 164‑‑Revision‑‑Pre‑emption suit decreed in favour of petitioner‑‑Rival pre‑emptor's appeal filed, after two years delay, accepted by Appellate Court‑‑Appellate Court's order failing to show, as to how delay of two years was accounted for‑ Provisions of Limitation Act being mandatory, held, could not be brushed aside by mere observation of Appellate Court that limitation was not attracted in the case‑‑Interpretation placed by Appellate Court as to extent of suit land regarding area comprised in suit was also far‑fetched‑‑Order of Appellate Court having been passed in a time‑barred appeal was set aside by Board of Revenue in revisional jurisdiction.
Malik Talib Hussain for Petitioner.
Muhammad Rashid Chughtai for Respondents.
This revision is filed against the order of the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Sargodha, dated 22‑12‑1980 whereby he had set aside the order of the Collector in appeal. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a pre‑emption suit against the respondent No.2 which was decreed in his favour by the Collector on 18‑4‑1978. After some two years, an appeal was filed against the judgment‑decree before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) Sargodha by respondent No.l Ziaul Hassan in his capacity as rival pre‑emptor. The Additional Commissioner accepted the appeal and held that the pre‑emption decree would operate only to the extent of 180/6085 of 45 Kanals and not 45 Kanals as was decreed by the Collector. Hence this revision.
2. I have heard the parties through their counsel and examined the facts of the case. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the impugned order on the following two grounds: ‑
(i) that the Additional Commissioner could not have entertained an appeal which was time‑barred by about 2 years; and
(ii) that the Additional Commissioner has misconstrued the facts of the case.
3. After considering the arguments addressed by the counsel for the parties, I would accept both the contentions being made by the petitioner. There was no justification, whatsoever, for having accepted the appeal of the respondent No.l as rival pre‑emptor after a long delay of about 2 years. The impugned order does not record as to how this delay of two years was accounted for by the respondent No.l before the Additional Commissioner. The provisions of the Limitation Act are mandatory and cannot be brushed side by mere observation that 'Limitation is not attracted in the instant case'. The interpretation placed by the Additional Commissioner as to the extent of suit‑land also seems somewhat far‑fetched.
4. After consideration the facts of the case I would set aside the order of the Additional Commissioner as having been passed in a time‑barred case and not being in accordance with the facts of the case. The result would be that the original decree granted by the Collector is restored.
A.A./222/R Revision allowed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer