1989 SCMR 1088

GHULAM MUHAMMAD and others vs MEMBER (CONSOLIDATION), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB and others

Share on WhatsApp ⭐ Prefer in Google

Citation1989 SCMR 1088

CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan

Case No.Civil Petition No,1049 of 1984

Date1988-09-13

Judge(s)Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan.

Authored byMuhammad Afzal Zullah

ResultLeave to appeal refused

AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This petition for leave to appeal arose from a consolidation matter where the High Court dismissed the petitioners' writ petition. The petitioners challenged the order of the Member, Board of Revenue, arguing that once a matter was admitted to regular hearing and a referee was appointed with the consent of the parties, the revision petition should not have been dismissed on the grounds of limitation or laches. The Supreme Court rejected this contention. The Court observed that the Member, Board of Revenue, had considered the case on its merits in addition to the issue of limitation. Furthermore, the High Court had duly considered the question of delay noted by the Member, Board of Revenue. Finding no legal or factual basis to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower forums, the Supreme Court held that the petitioners failed to make out a case for interference. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was refused.

Questions settled in this judgment

Can a revision petition be dismissed on the ground of limitation after a referee has been appointed with the consent of the parties?
Does the appointment of a referee preclude a tribunal from considering the issue of limitation or laches?

consolidation matterleave to appeallimitationlacheswrit jurisdictionBoard of Revenue

ORDER

1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought in a consolidation matter against the dismissal by the High Court of petitioners' Writ Petition.

2. Learned counsel has contended that after admitting the matter to regular hearing and appointing a referee with the consent of the parties, the learned Member, Board of Revenue, could not have and should not have dismissed the revision petition on the ground of limitation/lathes. We do not agree with him. The learned Member, Board of Revenue, dealt with the questions of merit also. The learned Judge in the High Court took note of the question of delay which was noticed by the Member, Board of Revenue. In the circumstances of this case, no case has been made out either on merits or on law for interference by this Court. Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused.