MUHAMMAD RAFIQ Versus EJAZI BEGUM
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a civil suit and subsequent regular first appeal, which were thrown out on the preliminary issue of limitation. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioners' suit for declaration and injunction, filed on 29 December 1980 to challenge transfer orders issued in 1961 and 1964 and an adverse appellate settlement order from 1965, was barred by time under Article 120 of the Limitation Act. The Supreme Court held that the cause of action accrued at least by 1965 upon the dismissal of the petitioners' appeal by the Additional Settlement Commissioner, making a suit filed in December 1980 manifestly time-barred. The court affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower courts and dismissed the petition, laying down that a civil suit challenging administrative settlement orders filed long after the expiration of the limitation period prescribed by Article 120 of the Limitation Act is incompetent.
- When does the cause of action for challenging a settlement order through a civil suit arise under Article 120 of the Limitation Act?
- Whether a civil suit filed in 1980 to challenge settlement transfer orders from 1961 and 1964 and a 1965 appellate decision is barred by time?
- Article 120, Limitation Act 1908
ORDER
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. M.I. /M‑543/S Petition dismissed.