Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: KALIMAN BIBI AND OTHERS VS Respondent: ISMAIL
P L D 1966 W
P L D 1966 W. P. (Rev.) 113
Before I. U. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan
KALIMAN BIBI AND OTHERS‑Petitioners
versus
ISMAIL‑Respondent
Revision No. 516 of 1964‑65, decided on 15th December 1965.
Mutation‑Time‑barred appeal filed on attaining majority by one, who was minor at time of mutation‑Entertained.
Jariullah Khan for Petitioners. Aslam Chata for Respondent.
ORDER
This is a revision filed against an order, dated the 18th of November 1964, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Sargodha, whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent was accepted.
The facts of the case are that on the death of Dheroo, a mutation of inheritance in favour of Ismail, respondent was sanc tioned on 6‑4‑1952. On 23‑6‑1964 (more than 12years afterwards) Mst. Kaliman Bibi, petitioner, filed an appeal before the Collector and sought condonation of the delay on the ground that she was minor. The Collector condoned the delay, accepted the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Assistant Collector, It Grade. The respondent went in appeal to the Additional Commissioner, Sargodha who accepted it. Hence this revision.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is admitted that when Mst. Hajra Bibi died she left three children, Mst. Kaliman Bibi, Mst. Razia Bibi and Nazir Ahmad. Her husband, Muhammad Shafi survived her. The learned Collector did not take all the facts into consideration. If Mst. Kaliman Bibi was the only heir left and filed an appeal after attaining majority, there would have been some justification for condoning delay. In this case not only her father but her brother and sister were also alive. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the brother and the sister were also minors, there is no justification for condoning this delay when the father Muhammad Shafi was alive.
Since the condonation of delay was unjustified, it is not necessary to go into the question as to whether Mst. Hajra made a gift or whether she died before Dheroo or afterwards.
In these circumstances, the learned Additional Commissioner was perfectly justified in interfering. There is no justification for any further interference. The revision fails and is dismissed hereby.
K. M. A. Revision dismissed.