MAJEEDUDDIN KHAN and others vs SARDAR KHAN and others
This matter arose from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the defendants against the judgment of the High Court, which dismissed their civil revision in a suit for declaration. The respondents/plaintiffs challenged the alleged alienation of suit land by their predecessor-in-interest as fraudulent. All three courts below rendered concurrent findings of fact establishing fraud and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners' counsel conceded that the concurrent findings of fact could not be challenged, but argued that the suit was barred by limitation because paragraph 11 of the plaint asserted that the cause of action arose in 1965, whereas the suit was filed in 1976. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, holding that paragraph 11 must be read in conjunction with paragraph 10 of the plaint. The Court held that where a party has been kept in the dark due to fraud, limitation runs from the date of knowledge of the fraud. Consequently, the suit was within time, and leave to appeal was refused.
- Whether the period of limitation for a suit challenging a fraudulent transaction runs from the date of knowledge of the fraud when the plaintiff was kept in the dark?
- Whether specific paragraphs of a plaint can be read in isolation to determine the bar of limitation without considering related explanatory paragraphs in the same pleading?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.---Leave to appeal has been sought by the defendant side in a suit for declaration; against the dismissal by the High Court, of their Civil Revision. They have lost throughout.
2. ' The plaintiffs' plea was that the so-called alienation by their predecessorin-interest one Gama Khan deceased which was the basis of the petitioners' right to the suit land (through intermediary predecessor-in-interest) was fraudulent as the said Gama Khan had never alienated it and that fraud had been committed in this case. After denial of the main allegations from the petitioners side, the suit was decreed. The petitioners' appeal and revision having been dismissed they have now sought leave to appeal.
3. ' Learned counsel rightly contended that the findings of fact by all the three Courts being against the petitioners, he is unable now to challenge them. He has accordingly, relying on some of the averments made in the plaint, tried to show that the suit was time-barred. According to him, as stated in paragraph 11 of the plaint, the cause of action having arisen in 1965 the suit filed in 1976 was barred by time. And the plea, that the plaintiffs had no knowledge of the fraud having been committed, hence time shall run from knowledge, according to him, will be of no avail to the respondents side; because, it is not so asserted in said paragraph 11.
4. If paragraph 11 is read in isolation as desired by the learned counsel the result would be the same as sought by him; hut, paragraph 10 which has to be read with paragraph 11 makes out a good case and explanation by the respondents side; namely, that they having been kept in dark on account of the fraud which, it has been established, was committed they could not have filed the suit within the period of limitation. Accordingly, in the circumstances of this case the time would start running from the date of knowledge and that being so the suit was not time-barred.
5. ' After hearing the learned counsel we do not find any force in this petition, leave to appeal, therefore, is refused.