Pakistan Case LawADIL KHAN Versus MEMBER (REVENUE), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB and others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition by the Lahore High Court, which upheld the Board of Revenue's decision dismissing the petitioner's revision petition as time-barred by 17 days. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners had originally pre-empted the sale of agricultural land, which was eventually decreed subject to making up a deficiency in court-fee. After protracted litigation involving remand orders and writ petitions concerning limitation and court-fee deficiencies, the High Court dismissed the petitioner's challenge against the Board of Revenue's decision on limitation. The core legal question concerns whether a revision petition held to be barred by limitation can be maintained when the initial rejection order was allegedly void and whether delay stands condoned if argued on merits without initial objection. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider the contentions regarding the void nature of the initial order, implied condonation of delay, and the raising of limitation objections for the first time in writ jurisdiction.
- Whether an order rejecting a suit for deficient court-fee is void and can be assailed without the bar of limitation?
- Does a decision on a revision petition on merits without objection regarding limitation amount to implied condonation of delay?
- Can a party raise the plea of limitation for the first time in writ jurisdiction after succeeding on merits before lower tribunals?
ORDER
MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J.--Adil Khan, the predecessor-ininterest of the petitioners pre-empted the sale of the suit land on the ground of being tenant thereof. The suit was contested but ultimately on 19-9-1980, it was decreed in his favour, by Collector, Chakwal. The respondent No,4 filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Rawalpindi, which was accepted and the case was remanded to the Collector for determination of the question of deficiency of court-fee paid by the petitioner.
The Collector, Chakwal, dismissed the suit on 27-2-1983, holding that suit was deficiently stamped by the petitioner. The petitioner filed appeal against the aforesaid order which was dismissed on 4- 8-1982, by the Additional Commissioner, Rawalpindi. The petitioner then filed a revision petition which was accepted on 7-4-1984, by the learned Member, Board of Revenue, holding that the petitioner was required to be given opportunity to make up the deficiency in court-fee. He, therefore, decreed the suit provided the petitioner made up the deficiency in the court-fee.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid order respondent No,4 filed Writ Petition contending that the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner before the Member, Board of Revenue was barred by limitation. The Lahore High Court vide order dated 4-2-1989 accepted the Writ Petition and remanded the case to the learned Member, Board of Revenue, for decision on the question of limitation. The learned Member, Board of Revenue, however, dismissed the revision petition on 1-5-1990, holding the same to be barred by 17 days.
Dissatisfied by the aforesaid order the petitioner filed Writ Petition which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 20-6-1992, passed by the Lahore High Court. Hence this petition for leave to appeal against that order.
Learned counsel for petitioner contended that the first order passed by the learned Collector, rejecting the suit on the ground that it was deficiently stamped for the purposes of court-fee was void and could be assailed in constitutional jurisdiction without the bar Of limitation. It was further submitted that if the basic order was void and illegal the subsequent orders based thereon would be of no legal consequence.
It was argued that the learned Member, Board of Revenue, decided the revision petition on merits without any objection from the learned counsel for the contesting respondent in regard to the question of limitation, therefore, the delay if any in filing the revision petition stood impliedly condoned. It was lastly submitted that the petitioner who succeeded in the decision of the suit on merits could not be non-suited by an objection raised by respondent No,4 for the first time in the writ jurisdiction.
Leave is granted in this case to consider the above-noted contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
Judges on this bench
- Muhammad Rafiq Tarar605 judgments
- Manzoor Hussain Sial807 judgments