1. ' Petitioner Abdul Hannan migrated to Pakistan from India in 1947 in the wake of partition. He tried to establish himself by obtaining possession of a Shop No,N.P/101/111/(Gl-1/1) Napier Quarters, Sarafa Bazar, Methadar, Karachi. Formally the shop was occupied by Hindu Evacuee, who were running the business of Sweetmeat in it. Thus, it was used as a Halwai shop. After the Hindus migrated to India, petitioners possession was regularized by an allotment order from the Rent Controller, Karachi who in those early days was the competent authority to issue allotments. The petitioner started paying rents 10 the Custodian as the shop was treated as Evacuee Property. Sometimes in 1963 the Evacuee Trust Property Committee raised a claim that the shop was a Trust Property and forced the petitioner to pay rents to them. This resulted in a clash of interest between the Settlement Authority who were treating the property as Evacuee Property acquired by the Government under section 3 of the Displaced Persons Rehabilitation and Settlement Act, and the Evacuee Trust Property Committee who were claiming that it was a property belonging to a Hindu Trust.
2. ' By an order dated 7-2-1968, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner after a full inquiry passed an order declaring it to be a, non-Trust Property. It was held that since 1936 it was the property of individual Hindu owners and after their migration it was treated as Evacuee Property. It was further held that the property was acquired by the Government under section 3 of the Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation Act and formed a part of the Compensation pool available for disposal according to law. The petitioner was interested in purchasing this property. The Settlement authorities agreed to dispose of the property to the petitioner, The petitioner paid Re.1,88,072 to the Settlement Department and they transferred the property to the petitioner, The petitioner thus became a fullfledged, owner of the shop and has been and continues to be in possession of the same till now.
3. ' Some time in 1982 the respondent No,1 moved the respondent No,2 to treat the property as Evacuee Trust Property. The petitioner received a notice of hearing of the case and on 25-10-1982.
4. The petitioner appeared before the respondent No,1, who heard the parties and closed the case the same day. Request of the petitioner for further time to produce more evidence was rejected and the respondent No,1 after closing the case reserved Judgment and left for Lahore. That without notice to parties the learned Respondent No,1 issued orders on 10-1-1983 and did not send even a copy of this order to the petitioner. This order was communicated to the respondent No,2 who by his letter dated 15-2-1983, informed the petitioner that orders were passed in the case at Lahore and the property was held to be an Evacuee Trust Property. The petitioner received this information on 16-2-1983. A photo copy of the order passed by respondent No,l, was also enclosed.
5. ' The petitioner wanted to avail the remedy of filing a Revision against this order. He deposited a sum of Rs,30 in the National Bank of Pakistan on 21-2-1983. On 22-2-1983 he sent an application for copies and enclosed the receipt of Rs,30 as copying charges which he had obtained from the Bank.
6. The petitioner received the certified copy of the order dated 10-1-1983 from Lahore on 10-4-1983.
7. ' In the meantime, without waiting for the certified copy from Lahore, the petitioner relying on the photo stat copy of the order, dispatched the revision to the respondent No,3 on 8-3-1983. In this revision he explained why a certified copy of the order was not enclosed and undertaking to file the same as soon as it was received from Lahore.
8. ' As stated above an application for certified copy had already been sent to Lahore along with the Bank receipt in the sum of Rs,30 being the copying charges. This certified copy was received by the petitioner on 10-4-1983 and before the petitioner could dispatch it to respondent No,3 in terms of the undertaking in the revision he had filed before the respondent No,3 on 8-3-1983, the respondent No,3 had dismissed the Revision by a short order which is reproduced below:- "This Revision Petition has been presented to me today. This Revision Petition was filed against an order of the Chairman, ETPB, Lahore dated 10th January, 1983 regarding the status of property. .bearing City Survey No,1/101-111 situated in Sarafa Bazar, Karachi. This petition dated 8th March, 1983 was received in this Ministry on 13th March, 1983. This is a time-barred Revision Petition and the grounds given for the delay in filing this Revision Petition are not convincing.
9. ' It is not possible for me to entertain it at this stage. The Revision Petition is dismissed on the grounds of being time-barred. Parties to be informed."
10. ' The perusal of the above order would show that the respondent No,3 has failed to bestow the attention and the care that the situation demanded. In para. L of the Revision filed before him and quoted in this petition the petitioner had detailed the circumstances under which the Revision was being filed before the respondent No,3.
11. ' The respondent No,3 seems to have completely ignored that the order passed on 10-1-1983 was served on the petitioner on 16-2-1983. The respondent also has failed to notice that the petitioner deposited the copying fee in the Bank on 21-2-1983 and in spite of curfew in the city and without waiting for the certified copy filed the Revision on 8-3-1984. The certified copy of order which, according to the rules is a necessary requirement for pursuing the remedy of Revision was not available to the petitioner till 10-4-1983.
12. ' There is force in the contention of the learned counsel that time should commence from the date when the certified copy of the order was received by the petitioner at Lahore and not from 10-1- 1983 when the order was passed. In this view of the matter the Revision is not only within time but has been filed premature. The only time that can be counted against the petitioner is between 16- 2-1983. When he received the order dated 10-1-1983 and 22-2-1983 when he applied for certified copy. Limitation would remain suspended till the certified copy is delivered to petitioner. And admittedly this was not delivered to the petitioner before 10-4-1983. But the petitioner had long before filed his Revision on 8-3-1983. The respondent No, 3 has unfortunately taken a very harsh and injudicious view, and this view is against law and equity.
13. The Petition is, therefore, allowed. The order passed by respondent No,3 is quashed. The respondent No,3 is directed to dispose of the Revision on merits after allowing full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
14. ' Petition is allowed. Case remanded to the respondent No,3 for early disposal according to law.