Case Details

Citation(s)
1987 SLG 1617 1987 SLD 1617 1987 SCMR 810
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 739 of 1983. decided on 1st March, 1987. (On appeal from the of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, dated 26-2-1983 in Writ Petition No. 402 of 1980) Date of hearing: 1st March, 1987.
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN AND SAAD SAOOD, JAN, J
Sh. Inayat Ali, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners. Mr. A.R. Arshad, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondent No. 1. Nemo for
Respondents Nos. 2 to 4.

ALLAH BAKHSH and another--Petitioners

VS

MUHAMMAD ISMAIL and others--Respondents

Law:

Section:

(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)-- ---Art. 199--Writ jurisdiction, exercise of--Petitioners' failure to avail themselves of remedy before competent forum within prescribed time, held, was itself sufficient ground for dismissal of constitutional petition. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)- ---Arts. 185(3) 6 199-- Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.5--Writ jurisdiction, exercise of--Limitation--Condonation of delay--Writ petition assailing order of Board of Revenue refusing to condone delay, dismissed--Order impugned-- Held: Question whether a sufficient cause for condonation of delay had been shown was one for Board of Revenue to decide--Decision of Board of Revenue in this regard could not ordinarily be challenged in writ jurisdiction--Leave to appeal refused. (c) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)-- ---Art. 185(3)--Leave to appeal, grant of--Concurrent finding on question of fact--Supreme Court declined to interfere with concurrent finding of Collector and Additional Commissioner which, after further examination, was confirmed by High Court. JUDGMENT SAAD SAOOD JAN, J--This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the , dated 26-2-1983 of the Lahore High Court dismissing the constitutional petition of the petitioners. 2. Respondent No.1 filed a suit for pre-emption in respect of a sale of agricultural land. He claimed that he was the tenant in the land covered by the sale. The suit was decreed by the Collector. The petitioners who were the vendees preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner. The appeal was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner who upheld the finding of the Collector with regard to the status of respondent No.1 in the land in question. The petitioners then filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue. It was dismissed on the ground that it had been preferred after the prescribed time. The petitioners invoked the constitutional…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492