KHALIL-UR-REHMAN vs TAJ DIN and anothers
This petition for leave to appeal arises from the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's civil revision against the concurrent rejection of his plaint in a suit for possession through partition and declaration. The core legal question concerns the appropriate article of limitation applicable to a suit seeking possession where a registered sale-deed is challenged as void, fake, and forged rather than explicitly seeking its cancellation. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the conflicting contentions of the parties regarding whether the limitation is governed by Article 91 or Article 120 of the Limitation Act, considering previous apex court precedents on the matter. The court held that leave should be granted to thoroughly review the application of the relevant limitation provisions.
- Whether a suit for possession where a registered sale-deed is alleged to be void and ineffective is governed by Article 91 or Article 120 of the Limitation Act?
- Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on the ground of limitation?
- Does a suit not specifically praying for cancellation of a document fall under Article 91 of the Limitation Act?
- Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Article 91, Limitation Act 1908
- Article 120, Limitation Act 1908
ORDER
' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, ACTG. C.J.-- This petition has been filed against the judgment dated 1st November, 1999 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Civil Revision No,3696 of 1994.
2. Precisely stating facts of the case are that on 11th March, 1989 petitioner filed a suit for possession through partition with consequential relief that the sale-deed registered on 17th March, 1970 was void, fake, forged and ineffective on the rights of the petitioner to his extent. Learned trial Court rejected the plaint by invoking the provisions of Order VII, rule 11 of the C.P.C. On the ground that the suit was barred by res judicata vide order dated 31st January, 1990. Petitioner filed appeal before the learned District Judge, Lahore who found that the suit was not barred by res judicata at all but rejected the plaint on the ground that the suit was barred by time. As such being aggrieved from the order of Civil Judge as well as District Judge, petitioner preferred Civil Revision No,3697 of 1994 before learned High Court but without any success as the same had been dismissed, hence instant petition for leave to appeal has been filed.
3. Learned counsel, inter alia, contended that petitioner has not prayed for cancellation of sale- deed dated 11th March, 1989, as he had filed a suit for possession and if, as a consequence of granting relief to him the document/registered sale-deed on which the respondent has relied, is declared void, fake, forged and ineffective and that the suit was also barred by limitation, in view of the judgment passed in the case of Mst. Hamida Begum v. Murad Begum and others PLD 1975 SC 624 as well as Laloo and another v. Ghulaman 2000 SCM R 1058, the suit under Article 91 of the Limitation Act would not be competent and would be governed under Article -120 of the Limitation Act.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for caveat relied upon the judgment in the case of Shamshad Ali Shah and another v. Syed Hassan Shah and others PLD 1964 SC 143 and contended that in such-like situation Article 91 of the Limitation Act will govern the proceedings, therefore, petitioner has rightly been non-suited by the District Judge on the question of limitation.
' After hearing both the sides and having gone through the judgments relied upon by them, leave to appeal is granted, inter alia, to examine their respective contentions.
Cited by 2 cases
- Muhammad Arshraf And Other vs Naseem Akhtar And 4 Other K.L.R. 2008 Civil Cases 248
- MUHAMMAD ASHRAF Versus NASEEM AKHTAR 2008 CLC 1720