Pakistan Case Law
2008 SCMR 913

MUHAMMAD KHAN vs MUHAMMAD AMIN through L.Rs, and others

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2008 SCMR 913
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petitions Nos.345 to 349-K of 2007
Date2008-03-03
Judge(s)Muhammad Moosa K. Leghari and Zia Perwez
Authored byMuhammad Moosa K. Leghari
ResultPetition dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which upheld the rejection of the petitioner's plaint for specific performance of contract, sale cancellation, and permanent injunction. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in rejecting the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. on the grounds of limitation without framing an issue or recording evidence. The petitioner argued that limitation is a mixed question of law and fact requiring evidence. The Supreme Court held that where the bar of limitation is apparent on the face of the plaint's own averments, the trial court is not obligated to frame an issue or record evidence. Upon examining the plaint, the Court found the cause of action accrued in January 2000, while the suit was filed in January 2004, clearly exceeding the limitation period prescribed by Article 113 of the Limitation Act. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that no interference was warranted as the legal bar was patent from the pleadings.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Is a trial court required to frame an issue and record evidence regarding limitation if the bar of limitation is apparent from the face of the plaint?
  • Does the filing of a suit for specific performance beyond the period prescribed by Article 113 of the Limitation Act justify the rejection of the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C.?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C.
  • Article 113 of the Limitation Act
rejection of plaintlimitationspecific performanceOrder VII Rule 11mixed question of law and factcivil procedure

' MUHAMMAD MOOSA K. LEGHARI, J.--- The judgment, dated 4-4-2006 passed by High Court of Sindh, Sukkur Bench, Sukkur, in constitutional jurisdiction has been assailed through these petitions for leave to appeal.

2. The plaint in the respective suits filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for specific performance of contract, sale cancellation and permanent injunction against the respective defendants/respondents was rejected under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. On the ground that it was barred by time. The revisions filed by the petitioner were dismissed. The constitutional petitions filed by him also met with the same fate.

3. Mr. Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui, learned Advocate-on-Record for the petitioners, contended that since the limitation was a mixed question of law and fact, the trial Court, was required to frame an issue and allow the parties to lead evidence according to the settled principles of law. He referred to the case of Abdul Hamid and another v. Dilawar Hussain alias Bhalli and others 2007 SCM R 945 in support of his contentions.

4. We have considered the submissions and examined the respective plaints as well as judgments and orders passed by the Courts below. On perusal of paragraph 18 of the plaint it appears that the petitioner in the plaint averred that the cause of action accrued to the plaintiff in the month of January, 2000 when the petitioners approached the defendants, to sale the suit property after issuance of T.O. Form. The plaint in the suits were admittedly filed on 5-1-2004. Evidently the suit was filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Article 113 of the Limitation Act. It must be stated that the fact of limitation is evident from the averments made in the plaint itself. In such circumstances, the trial Court was not required to frame issue and record evidence. The argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners is absolutely misconceived and not tenable. There is no infirmity or illegality in the judgment delivered by the High Court. It warrants no interference.

Accordingly the petition is dismissed and leave refused.

Cited by 11 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.