Find a Lawyer

Review Side No. 1 of 1958‑59, decided on 5th January 1959, District Multan.

‑Cannot be reconsidered by Member.

‑Review petition must be filed within 90 days‑Time spent in prosecuting case before Full Board not excluded.

S. M. Ansari for Petitioner.

This purports to be a petition for the review of my order dated 6‑10‑1958, dismissing in default the review petition filed by the petitioner. The order shows that the petitioner was present, but his counsel was absent, as he was busy in another Court. The petitioner was not prepared to argue the case in the absence of his counsel, who had notice for the hearing of his case in my Court. Since the counsel had notice of the case, he should have been present in my Court at the prescribed hour, or should have prayed for an adjournment well in advance. The petition was thus dismissed on good grounds. The, petitioner's counsel was allowed to urge all the points he wanted to raise. Even after considering those points I find that the petition cannot succeed even on merits.

The revision petition which was treated as such by my predecessor and allowed by his order dated 2‑7‑1957. By that order the respondent's appointment as Lambardar by the Collector was restored The present petitioner filed a revision petition against that order before the Full Board which dismissed it by its order dated 7‑3‑58. It was alleged before the Full Board that order dated 2‑7‑57, passed by my predecessor was really an order in appeal. This view was not accepted by the Board on the ground that the petition of Jan Muhammad was described as a revision petitions and was allowed by my predecessor as a revision petition and so he must be considered to have acted in the exercise of his revisional jurisdiction. After the order passed by the Full Board, it is not open tome to reconsider the matter.

Moreover, according to section 8 of the Board of Revenue Act, a review petition must be filed within 90 days of the date of the order. The contention of the petitioner is that the time spent in prosecuting the case before the Full Board should be excluded from the period of limitation. Considering the circum stances of the case. I do not find adequate grounds for excluding this period.

The only other point urged before me at the time of arguments was that the number of families from various districts and tribes given in the previous orders is based on incorrect reports. If the petitioner disputed the, figures, it was open to him to produce the alleged correct figures before my predecessor had passed his order. That being so, the petition cannot succeed on that ground also.

The result is that the petition is rejected in limine.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.