Hakim Ali etc vs Mst. Feroza Begum (deceased) thr. L.Rs., etc
This civil petition for leave to appeal arises out of concurrent decisions of the lower forums dismissing the petitioners' suit for declaration and permanent injunction as time-barred. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioners' suit, instituted on 20.11.2013 challenging a sale deed dated 05.04.1961—with knowledge of the same acknowledged by the petitioners at least by 17.03.2006—was within the period of limitation. The Supreme Court held that the suit was manifestly barred by time, as the petitioners failed to institute it within the statutory period from the date of their admitted knowledge. Consequently, the Court affirmed the concurrent rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and the refusal to condone delay under the Limitation Act 1908, laying down that a suit filed long after acquiring knowledge of the contested transaction cannot be entertained and is liable to outright rejection.
- Whether a suit filed years after acquiring clear knowledge of a disputed sale deed is barred by limitation?
- Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when it is manifestly barred by time?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of lower courts regarding the dismissal of a time-barred suit?
- Article 185(3), Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973
- Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Section 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Section 12(2), Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Section 5, Limitation Act 1908
- Section 14, Limitation Act 1908
Amin-ud-Din Khan, J.--Through this Civil Petition filed under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, leave has been sought against the order dated 19.12.2018, passed by the learned Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby Civil Revision Bearing No 81695 of 2017, filed by the Petitioners, was dismissed.
2. A Suit for Declaration and Permanent Injunction was filed by the Plaintif fs/Petitioners. Two applications were filed in the Suit; first application was filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC read with Section 11 of the CPC on behalf of Defendant No. 9, and the second application was filed by the Plaintif fs under Sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908 for condonation of delay . The learned Trial Court was pleased to dismiss the application under Sections 5 and 14 of the afore-said Act of 1908, whereas the application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC was accepted and rejected the Suit of the Plaintif fs being barred by time vide judgment and decree dated 28.01.2016. An appeal there-against was also dismissed by the learned Appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 03.06.2017.
Thereafter , the Civil Revision filed by the Petitioner before the learned High Court too was dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 19.12.2018, Hence, this Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and perused the available record.
4. The impugned Sale Deed is dated 05.4.1961, of which the Petitioner had knowledge on 17.03.2006 at the very least, when he filed an application under Section 12(2) of the CPC in another Suit based upon the impugned Sale Deed. However , the instant Suit was filed on 20.11.2013, hence, it was clearly barred by time. The plaint was rightly rejected concurrently by the three learned. Courts below and the case merits no interference.
5. Consequently , this Civil Petition is dismissed and leave refused.