Find a Lawyer

Appellate Side No. 105 of 1957‑58, decided on 12th January, 1959; District Rahimyarkhan.

(a) Redemption of Mortgages (Punjab) Act (II of 1913), S. 12‑Collector's order final unless set aside by Civil Court

Commissioner's order in revision without jurisdiction, but Board of Revenue has no jurisdiction to interfere‑Aggrieved party 'nay institute suit challenging order of Commissioner.

(b) Costs‑Adjournment granted on payment of costs‑No review lies against order of costs.

Muhammad Yahya for Petitioners.

Abdur Razag for Respondents.

Qazi Muhammad Bakhsh, the petitioner, and others filed an application under section 4 of the Redemption of Mortgages Act, 1913. On this the Collector passed an order on 10‑9‑1957. Gamman, the respondent, filed a petition before the Commis sioner, against that order. The Commissioner treated it as a revision petition and passed his order dated 3‑5‑58. The petitioners have come in revision against that order of the Commissioner.

2. Section 12 of the Redemption of Mortgages Act, 1913, lays down that an order passed by the Collector is conclusive, except that a party aggrieved by that order may institute a suit to establish his rights in respect of the Mortgage. The contention of the petitioner is that in view of the provision the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition and so the order passed by him on revision should be set aside by the Board of Revenue. Section 12 of the Redemption of Mortgages Act gives no powers to the Board to deal with cases under that Act. That being so, any party desiring to establish that the order of the Commissioner was without jurisdiction has also to seek remedy by instituting a suit. If the Board were to declare whether or not the order of the Commissioner was without jurisdiction, it will have itself to assume jurisdiction in respect of an order passed by the Collector under the Redemption of Mortgages Act to which the Commissioner's order relates. No such jurisdiction vests in the Board.

3. The result is that the petition is rejected in limine.

The respondent has filed a petition with a request that my previous order dated 17‑11‑1958, with regard to cost may be reviewed, as he is a poor man and cannot make the payment. The previous adjournment was made at his 9wn request and the position was explained to him that the order cannot be reviewed and that the petitioner agreed to secure the adjournment on payment of cost.

The petitioner then asked for some time to deposit the amount of cost in question. He is allowed one month to do so.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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