MUAZZAM ALI GORAYA vs MEMBER (JUDICIAL-I) Ss — 2025 CLC 1217 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

MUAZZAM ALI GORAYA VS MEMBER (JUDICIAL-I) Ss. 161, 162 & 167---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 3---Assailing an order passed by the Revenue hierarchy---Limitation---Scope---Constitutional petition was filed as the appeal of the petitioners was dismissed by the Member-Board of Revenue on the point of limitation---Validity---Admittedly, the litigation between the parties was initiated under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967 ('the Act 1967'), which is a special law and provides its own period of limitation for appeals---Section 161 of the Act, 1967 deals with filing of appeal whereas period for filing is provided under S. 162 of the Act, 1967, which clearly manifests that ninety days are prescribed for filing of appeal against the order of the Commissioner to the Board of Revenue---Pertinently, provision of S. 167 of the Act, 1967 expressly provides that limitation shall be governed by the provisions of Limitation Act, 1908, in filing of appeal, review or revision filed under the Act, 1967---Impugned order showed that the order passed by the Commissioner was assailed before the Member-Board of Revenue, after inordinate delay of one year and 21 days---Question of limitation is of significance importance---In terms of S. 3 of the Limitation Act, 1908, every court is bound to consider such question despite not being raised by the parties to the lis, which has paramount importance, as with the afflux of time certain rights do accrue in favour of the adversary, which cannot be taken away in a slipshod manner---The object for framing the law for the purpose of regulating the limitation was to push the parties to file their respective claims within stipulated period---The time period provided for filing the proceedings in terms of appeal, review or revision petition cannot be lightly ignored or brushed aside---Petitioners fully knew factum of litigation history and passing of order by the Commissioner and to assail it before the Board of Revenue in terms of S. 161(1)(c) of the Act, 1967 within the statutory period of limitation but they remained sleeping for more than one year---Law helps the vigilant and not the indolent---When a law describes or requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, it should be done in that manner or not at all---Petitioners failed to point out any illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order, warranting interference by this/High Court in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction---Constitutional petition was dismissed , in circumstances.

MUAZZAM ALI GORAYA vs MEMBER (JUDICIAL-I) Ss — 2025 CLC 1217 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 CLC