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.
Review Side No. 39 of 1960‑11, decided on 3rd August 1961, District Muzaffargarh.
(a) Punjab Land Revenue Act, (XVII of 1887), S. 16‑
Revision ‑Petition for revision not to be entertained if filed after 90 days.
(b) West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act (IX of 1957), S. 8.‑Case not falling under S. 8‑ review lies.
Qureshi Mahmud Ahmad for Petitioner.
This is an application for a review of my order dated 6‑4‑1961 by which I had declined to consider ‑the revision application of the petitioner on the ground that it had been filed after more than 90 days of the passing of the impugned order. The only point taken up before me is that the law does not lay down any period of limitation for making an application for revision but as was mentioned by me in the order the practice of the Financial Commissioners and the Board of Revenue has been not to re‑open a case at the instance of a party if the application is made when more than 90 days have passed after the passing of the order. It may be stated that relaxation under the law is provided in cases of appeals where an aggrieved party has a right to come up but revision applications stand on a different footing. The powers of revision are supervisory and controlling in character and the statute does not bestow any right in favour of a party who feels aggrieved to re‑agitate the matter before the Board of Revenue. Besides no reason is forthcoming why any relaxation should be given in this particular case as even a copy, of the order of the Collector had also been made available before the period of 90 days had expired. Mr. Mahmood Ahmad Qureshi has stated before me that an application for a copy of the Collector's order was made on 6‑12‑1960 and a copy was provided a day later i.e., on 7‑12‑1960. In these circumstances there is no reason what s over why the order passed by me should be reviewed particularly when the provisions of section 8 of the Board of Revenue are not attracted by this case. The application accordingly stands dismissed.
K. M. A. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer