SHAH MUHAMMAD and others vs CENTRAL GOVERNMENT and others

ORDER

' ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, This is a petition for leave to appeal against an order of a learned Single Judge of Lahore High Court dated 11-1-1996 dismissing the petitioners' revision petition (Civil Revision No,89 of 1996) in limine.

2. Petitioners claiming themselves to be the owners in possession of the land in dispute brought a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in the year 1990 wherein they, inter alia, challenged the auction of the suit land as evacuee property held on 24-9-1974. They asserted that the land in dispute was not an evacuee property. It was illegally treated as such and sold in auction to the defendants. The suit was contested by defendant No,6, the auction-purchaser on the ground that it was barred by limitation. His further plea was that he was in possession of the land in dispute and, therefore, the suit as framed was not maintainable. Yet another objection taken by the said defendant was that the petitioners had never challenged the auction/order of the Settlement Authority in any appropriate proceedings.

3. It appears that the learned Trial Court rejected the plaint on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation. The appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed and similar was the fate of the revision petition filed by them in the High Court. The learned Judge in the High Court while dismissing the revision petition has not only upheld the findings of the Courts below on the question of limitation but further observed that the petitioners were required under the law to obtain a declaration from the Custodian to the effect that the property in dispute is not an evacuee property but they failed to approach the Custodian and as such "could not possibly be granted the same relief through the back door by invoking the jurisdiction of Civil Court. Obviously the jurisdiction of Civil Court was barred to grant such a declaration, therefore, from the facts disclosed in the very plaint, the plaint was barred by law and was rightly rejected". It was noted by the learned Judge that the petitioners having failed to specifically plead as to on what date, they came to know of the original order of auction dated 24-9-1974 and mutation dated 14-5-1984, "the suit filed in September, 1990 was obviously barred by limitation. This being so, the two Courts below have not committed any illegality in rejecting the plaint in the suit filed by the petitioners thereby calling for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court".

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. He has not been able to controvert the afore-noted factual findings with the result that no legitimate exception can be taken to the view taken by the Courts below particularly their finding that the suit was barred by time. The plaint was, therefore, rightly rejected. No case is made out for interference by this Court. This petition is accordingly dismissed and the leave sought is refused.