Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: NOOR MUHAMMAD VS Respondent: MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE
P L D 1964 W
P L D 1964 W. P. (Rev.) 53
Before Nasir Ahmad, Member Board of Revenue,
West Pakistan
NOOR MUHAMMAD‑---Petitioner
versus
MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE AND ANOTHER‑---Respondents
Revision No. 548 of 1961‑62, decided on 25th October 1963, District Bahawalpur
(a) Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1887), S. I5 (3) Review application already rejected‑‑No appeal competent.
(b) Practice‑----Appeal may be treated as revision, if filed with in 90 days.
(c) Revision‑----Can be filed within 90 days‑Delay can be con doned on good cause.
Rafique Ahmad Khan Bangash for Petitioner.
Asghar Ali Bhatti for Respondent No. 1.
Muhammad Rashid for Respondent No. 2.
ORDER
T need not go into the merits of this petition which is not ten able under the law. The original order of the learned Commis sioner was passed on 5‑1‑1962. Later on an application was made to him for a review of this order but it was dismissed on 14‑7‑1962. According to section 15 (3) of the Land Revenue Act no appeal lies against the subsequent order refusing to review, and confirming the previous order. A revision could thus be filed against the order of the Commissioner dated 5‑1‑1962 which the petitioners failed to do within a period of 90 days. The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that since there is no time limit fixed in the Land Revenue Act for filing a revision petition, the petition may be treated as a revision against the original order/t of the Commissioner dated 5‑1‑1962. 1 am not inclined to accept this argument. No doubt section 16 of the Act does not pres cribe any time limit for exercising revision powers yet it has been field in a number of cases by the Financial Commissioners and Members of the Bard of Revenue that a petition for revision. by a private party should ordinarily be filed within the time prescribed for filing an appeal i.e., 90 days. In this case the revision‑1 has been filed 5 months after the expiry of this period and no i cogent grounds have been put forward for condoning this delay. I would, therefore, hold that the revision petition is not competent and dismiss it.
K. M. A.
Revision rejected.