SARDAR MUHAMMAD and others vs MUHAMMAD FAZIL and others
This matter concerns two Civil Review Petitions filed against a judgment regarding a pre-emption suit. The core legal question was whether the suit filed by the respondent was barred by limitation, specifically whether the period of limitation should be computed from the date of attestation of the mutation or from the date of delivery of physical possession of the land under the relevant statute. The Supreme Court observed that the trial court had already established as a finding of fact that the suit was filed within one year from the date of attestation of the mutation and that the delivery of physical possession prior to that date was not proven. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to challenge this finding of fact in the First Appellate Court, instead attempting to argue for a different commencement date for the limitation period. The Court held that since no mistake apparent on the face of the record was demonstrated, the petitions lacked merit. The key principle affirmed is that findings of fact regarding the date of possession and limitation, when not challenged in appellate proceedings, cannot be reopened in review petitions absent a manifest error.
- Can a finding of fact regarding the date of possession be challenged in a review petition if it was not contested in the First Appellate Court?
- Does the limitation period for a pre-emption suit commence from the date of attestation of mutation or the date of delivery of physical possession when possession prior to mutation is not proven?
- Section 30, Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913
ORDER
' MUNIR A. SHEIKH. J.---By this common order, we propose to decide these two Civil Review Petitions.
Learned counsel for the petitioner wanted to argue that the suit tiled by respondent/plaintiff-pre- emptor was barred by time, the same having not been filed within one year from the date of even attestation of mutation.
2. We have gone through the judgment of the trial Court in which it was clearly held that the suit had been filed within one year from the date of attestation of mutation and delivery of physical possession of the land prior thereto had not been proved.
3. In the grounds of appeal before the First Appellate Court, the petitioner did not challenge the correctness of findings that from the date of mutation the suit had been filed within one year but stated that the period of limitation should he computed from the date of delivery of possession of the land under section 30 of Punjab Pre-emption Act.
4. A finding of fact had already been recorded .That delivery of physical possession of land had not been proved to have been made prior to the date of attestation of mutation.
5. No case of mistake apparent on the face of record has been made out, therefore, these petitions have no merits which are accordingly dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.