2024 YLR 552 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Full text

UMER KHAN VS MEMBER-I, BOARD OF REVENUE, KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA, PESHAWAR S. 12(2)---Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Tenancy Act (XXV of 1950), Ss. 52 & 56---Appeal, preferring of---Limitation---Time requisite to obtain certified copies---Scope---Revenue Court (of original jurisdiction) while accepting the suit filed by the land-owners, passed the eviction order, which order was maintained by the first Appellate Forum, however, on second appeal preferred by the tenants the case was remanded to the first Appellate Court for decision of appeal on merits---Revision filed against the said remanding order was disposed of by the Board of Revenue directing revision petitioners/tenants to approach the Court of Additional Commissioner being the proper forum---Petitioners/tenants filed constitutional petition against the said order passed by the Board of Revenue---Validity---Record revealed that the suit filed by the respondents for eviction of the present petitioners from the suit property on the ground of non-payment of share in the produce and damage caused to the property and the Revenue Court, after recording pro and contra evidence in the case, granted a decree in favour of respondents---Said decree was challenged by the petitioners in appeal but the same was dismissed on technical ground i.e. on the ground of limitation---However, the record revealed that the petitioners, for filing of appeal, applied for copy of the judgment/decree but they were provided copies after about twenty days, and they filed appeal after about 17 days after obtaining copes of the judgment/decree they intended to prefer appeal against---Therefore, time spent in getting copies had to be excluded while computing the period of limitation as ' the time requisite' in terms of S.12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1908---Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1908, stipulated that the time spent for getting copies of the judgment had to be excluded from being counted for the purpose of limitation and, therefore, the remanding order which was upheld by the Member Board of Revenue was legally and patently correct---Petitioners had failed to point out any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error therein, hence constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.