Mst. AMINA KHATOON And Others vs ABDULLAH JAN And Other
This is a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Baluchistan High Court dated 23-7-1986, which had allowed appeals and remanded the suit to the Additional District Judge II, Quetta, for a fresh judgment and decree on merits after deciding certain legal issues. The core legal questions involved whether the civil suit was barred by the principles of res judicata and whether it was barred by limitation. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the plea of res judicata was not pressed by the petitioner's counsel, and the plea of limitation was untenable because the plaintiff had actively pursued the correction of revenue mutation entries, succeeding ultimately on 29-5-1979, rendering the suit filed thereafter well within time. The Court dismissed the petition, upholding the remand order for a decision in accordance with the law.
- Whether a civil suit is barred by limitation when filed after the final correction of revenue mutation entries relating to the dispute?
- Can an appellate court remand a suit for a fresh judgment and decree after deciding preliminary legal issues?
ORDER
1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.--This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of a single Judge of Baluchistan High Court dated 23-7-1986 whereby he while allowing an appeal filed by petitioners and another appeal filed by respondents 2 to 5 herein, remanded the suit between the parties to the Additional District Judge II, Quetta "with the direction to pass a judgment and decree according to law, on all issues, except the legal ones which have been decided by me in the foregoing paragraphs." Learned Judge further directed that the parties may be given an opportunity of being heard".
2. The legal issues decided by the learned Judge in the High Court were whether the suit was barred by the principles of res judicata and was even otherwise time-barred.
3. Mr. N.A. Farooqi learned counsel appearing in support of the petition frankly conceded that he cannot press to service the bar of the principle of res judicate in view of the reasons that have found favour with the learned Judge. He however submitted that the predecessor-in-interest of the parties, namely, Din Gul, having died on 25-12-1961 and the suit having been filed on 13-11-1979, it was obviously barred by time.
4. The pleas raised regarding the period of limitation before the High Court was totally different; that was regarding the sale of a portion of the suit- property which according to petitioners was known to the plaintiff (respondent-1 herein). This plea was rejected by the learned Judge in the High Court for proper and cogent reasons. The plea of limitation raised before us in equally untenable, for, respondent-1 had firstly approached the revenue authorities for the correction of mutation-entries in respect of the suit property in which his name was omitted. He ultimately succeeded in this behalf on 29-5-1979, and it was thereafter, that he filed the suit against the petitioners and respondents 2 to 5 well within time.
5. There is, therefore, no scope of an argument that the suit was barred by time.
6. So far as the order of remand of the case for fresh judgment and decree, no exception can be taken, and indeed no plea was urged before us. For these reasons, the petition is dismissed.