Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD RAFIQ VS Respondent: EJAZI BEGUM
1988 S C M R 1874
1988 S C M R 1874
Present: Abdul Kadir Shaikh, S.A.Nusrat and Zaffar Hussain Mirza, JJ
MUHAMMAD RAFIQ and 4 others‑‑Petitioners
versus
Mst. EJAZI BEGUM and 6 others‑‑Respondents
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.41‑Q of 1987, decided on 23rd May, 1988.
(From the judgment/order of Baluchistan High Court, Quetta dated 13‑5‑1987 in R . F . A . No.15 of 1987).
Limitation Act (IX of 1908)‑‑
‑‑‑Art.120‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Limitation‑ Time‑barred suit‑‑Dismissal of suit for declaration and injunction filed about 15 years after cause of action arose was dismissed as time‑barred and decision upheld in appeal by High Court‑‑Suit being apparently barred by time in terms of Art.120 of Limitation Act, no exception could be taken to impugned judgment‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Iftikhar Muhammad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
S.A.M.Quadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos.l to 5.
Date of hearing: 23rd May, 1988.
ORDER
ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.‑‑This petition arises out of a suit filed by the petitioners for declaration and injunction on 29‑12‑1980 seeking to challenge the issuance of Provisional Transfer Order dated 4‑1‑1961 and the consequent Permanent Transfer Deed issued on 7‑4‑1964 in favour of Mirza Muhammad Baig, predecessor‑in‑interest of the respondents. Petitioners had earlier challenged these orders in an appeal before the Additional Settlement Commissioner which was dismissed by the order dated 29‑12‑1965 on merits and also on the ground that it was barred by time. Petitioners then filed revision applications but these were dismissed. It was long thereafter when the period prescribed under Article 120 of the Limitation Act had expired that petitioners filed the aforesaid suit in the Civil Court. Learned trial Judge dismissed the suit on the preliminary issue of limitation by the judgment dated 7‑2‑1987 and petitioner's R.F.A. against this judgment and decree was also dismissed by a learned Single Judge of Baluchistan High Court on 18‑5‑1987.
We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in support of this petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of the High Court and perused the record of the case. We find the cause of action in terms of Article 120 of the Limitation Act arose at least inl1965 when the appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner. The suit of the petitioners filed as late as on 29‑12‑1980 was apparently barred by time. No exception can, therefore, be taken with the impugned judgment of the High Court, and the petition is dismissed.
M.I. /M‑543/S Petition dismissed.