RIAZ HUSSAIN and others vs Mst. AISHA BIBI and others

ORDER

' AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J.---This revision petition pertains to the year 1991. After the death of previous counsel for petitioners another counsel appeared and filed power of the attorney. Today no one appeared on behalf of the petitioners, hence, under the policy of this Court no adjournment can be granted as this case is very old one. Further when it is revision petition, this Court can also decide the same after perusal of record and hearing the available parties.

2. Through this revision petition, the petitioners have challenged the judgment and decree dated 25-3-1991, passed by the learned District Judge, Multan, whereby the appeal filed by them as well as the cross objections filed by the other side were dismissed, and the judgment and decree dated 10-10-1987 passed by the learned trial Court, whereby the suit for declaration and partition filed by the petitioner-plaintiff was dismissed.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that the suit was filed by the petitioner/plaintiff Riaz Hussain in the year 1972 claiming declaration on the ground that the property of Atta Muhammad Khan, paternal uncle of plaintiff, was devolved upon his widow Mst. Aisha Bibi as limited owner, as Atta Muhammad Khan died before the promulgation of West Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat)

Application Act, 1948. As in the year 1962 after promulgation of West Punjab Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act No, V of 1962 her limited interest was terminated and the property reverted to the last male owner i,e, Atta Muhammad Khan, therefore, a right in the said property has been claimed by the plaintiff as legal heir of last male owner. With regard to limitation issue No,5-A was framed. Learned counsel states that as there are concurrent findings of fact recorded by two courts below, therefore, ordinarily revisional .Court is not expected to call for interference in the concurrent findings of two Courts below. States that the suit property was transferred by Mst.

Aisha Bibi in favour of Saleem Khan in the year 1959 and this fact is proved as well as admitted by the petitioners.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the respondents and gone through the record as well as concurrent findings recorded by two Courts below.

5. There is no denial that the suit was filed on 13-11-1972 after the prescribed period of limitation.

Learned both the courts below have discussed the evidence as well as the admitted position that suit has been filed after the prescribed period of limitation. When the transaction of transfer of property by defendant No,1 took place on 24-6-1959 and filing of suit in the year 1972 was clearly barred by time and further that both the courts below have concurrently found that the suit has been filed after the prescribed period of limitation, therefore, not proceed able. It is now settled that question of limitation cannot be considered a technicality. Reliance can be placed upon "2011 SCM R 8 (Muhammad Islam v. Inspector General of Police,' Islamabad and others) and PLD 2013 Supreme Court 392 (Farman Ali v. Muhammad Ishaq and others)". Even in the matter of inheritance a suit must be filed within the prescribed period of limitation and only on the basis that matter relates to the inheritance the limitation be ignored is not a valid stance or ground.

6. In this view of the matter, I see no illegality or infirmity in the concurrent findings recorded through the judgments passed by the learned two courts below and as such I am unable to disagree with the concurrent findings recorded by two courts below. Resultantly, this revision petition being not maintainable stands dismissed.