Find a Lawyer

Revision Side No. 5 of 1960‑61, decided on 23rd September 1961, District Sialkot.

‑Due to alteration of tour programme of Revenue Officer‑Notice put up on Notice Board and information sent to parties to appeal‑Default in appearance of appellant Appeal dismissed‑Parties' duty to keep themselves in touch with pro ceedings‑Order of dismissal not interfered with in Revision Punjab Tenancy Act (XVI of 1887), S. 84.

Mian Kamal Din v. Muhammad Bashir P L D 1952 Lab, 456 rel.

This is a revision from the Additional Commissioner appellate order dated 6‑6‑1961, whereby he confirmed the Collector's order dated 15‑7‑1960, granting a decree to the respondent for Rs. 2,000 on account of rent.

2. The respondent had instituted a suit for arrears of rent for the period Khrif, 1954 to Rabi 1957 in respect of his land measuring 26 Kanals and Marlas situated in village Rangpur, District Sialkot. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade dismissed this suit on the ground that the registered lease‑deed had expired on 31‑12‑1954. On appeal, the Collector decreed the suit on the ground that, although the lease period, as contained in the registered lease‑deed had expired, yet the revenue‑record entry showed that the petitioners had cultivated the: land and had an obligation to pay the rent.

3. During the second appeal proceedings before the Additional Commissioner, the parties, in the presence of their counsel, agreed on 7‑3‑1961 that the petitioners would deposit Rs. 2,000 in the mosque and the respondent would take it if he genuinely believed that he was entitled to it. 4th April, 1961 was fixed for the purpose, but the petitioners did not appear. Instead they moved through their counsel for another adjourn ment. Accordingly, the next hearing was fixed for 2nd May 1961. But, as the Additional Commissioner's tour programme was altered a notice was put up on the Board as well as information was sent to the parties to be present on 6th June 1961. On that date the respondent was present. The counsel for the petitioners Ch. Nazir Ahmad Cheema, was also present in other cases, which also had been adjourned from 2nd May to the 6th June 1961. But, he did not appear in this case although he was specifically called up by the Additional Commissioner through his peon. The Additional Commissioner, therefore, rejected the second appeal.

4. Now the learned counsel for the petitioners has put in an affidavit that neither he nor his clients were served with notice, to appear on 6‑6‑1961, nor had the Additional Commissioner's peon called him up. As against this, the respondent has put in a counter‑affidavit affirming that, on 6‑6‑1961, Ch. Nazir Ahmad Cheema, the petitioners' counsel, was present and appeared before the Additional Commissioner in other appeals ; that the Court called the petitioners several times and even sent a peon to call Mr. Cheema ; that, Mr. Cheema replied that he was not feeling well and that he could not appear. The counter- affidavit is borne out by the recitals in the first paragraph of the Additional Commissioner's judgment. I, therefore, reject the affidavit of the petitioner's counsel as being unworthy of reliance. In Mian Kamal Din v. Malik Muhammad Bashir (P L D 1952 Lah. 456) it was by a Division Bench that once a party receives intimation of an action, it is for him to pursue it and to keep in touch with the proceed ings, either personally or through his counsel. The previous date fixed for hearing the second appeal was 2nd May 1961, and when the Additional Commissioner did not go to Sialkot on that date, it was for the petitioners, who were the appellants, to pursue it and to keep themselves in touch with the proceedings particularly when the Additional Commissioner arrived at Sialkot on or near about 6th June 1961.

Section 84 of the Punjab Tenancy Act read with section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code enables me to interfere in a case of this kind only if the subordinate Court appears: ‑

(a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested, in it by law, or

(b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested ; or

(c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity ;

I find that none of the above factors exist in the present case. The fact also do not reveal any discourage of justice sufficient to warrant interference on the revisional side. The revision is, therefore, dismissed with costs.

S. E.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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