 |
| Limitation on Civil revision |
سول ریویژن مقررہ مدت کے بعد دائر ہونے پر خارج — لاہور ہائیکورٹ کا اہم فیصلہ
⚖️ مقدمہ کا پس منظر
📌 اصل قانونی سوال
🏛️ ہائیکورٹ کا فیصلہ
✦ اہم قانونی نکات
⚠️ قانونی اصول
📖 نتیجہ
Must read judgement.
PLJ 2026 Civil (Note) 38
[Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench]
Present: Ch. Muhammad Iqbal, J.
MUHAMMAD ZAFAR etc.--Petitioners
versus
PROVINCE OF PUNJAB etc--Respondents
C.R. No. 81 of 2021, decided on 11.2.2026.
Limitation Act, 1908 (IX of 1908)--
----S. 162-A--Right of inheritance--Fraudulent mutation -Civil Revision--Limitation--Time-barred petition--Applied for certified copies--Objection--Delay in re-filing--Office objections--Condonation of delay--Sufficient cause--Accrued right--Finality of litigation--Revisional jurisdiction--Dismissal of revision--Indolent litigant--Adversarial litigation--Preponderance of evidence--It could not be left open for a delinquent party to challenge adverse order at time of its own choice and if any leniency was extended in this regard then there would have been no end of adversarial litigation which tantamounted to frustrate ends of justice--Time consumed in removing objections was to be counted under limitation and if time consumed was more than that provided in Limitation Act, then such matter was to be dismissed as barred by time--After expiry of statutory period of limitation, verdicts in question had attained status of finality/past and closed transaction--Law of limitation played a pivotal role in administration of justice and an aggrieved person had to approach competent forum within prescribed period of limitation and against adverse order a party could not be allowed to sleep over it for an indefinite period and challenge it at time of its own choosing rather aggrieved party was placed under legal obligation to avail its legal remedy against adverse decision/order/ decree within prescribed statutory period of limitation before proper forum--Petition dismissed. [Para 3 & 4] A, B, C & D
Ch. Abdul Jabbar, Advocate, for Petitioners.
Rai Mazhar Hussain Kharal, Assistant Advocate General for Respondent No. 1.
Syed Muhammad Areeb Abdul Khafid, Advocate for Respondents No. 2, 3-b, 6-a.7-a & 10-a.
Mr. Salal Ashraf Mazari, Advocate for Respondent No. 13.
Mr. Zahid Khan Bangash, Advocate for Respondent No. 15.
Mr. Haseeb Shaid Khan, Advocate for Respondent No. 17.
Muhammad Aurangzeb, Advocate for Respondent No. 22.
Mr. Shakeel Ahmad Bobra, Advocate for Respondent No. 24.
Date of hearing: 11.2.2026.
Judgment
Brief facts of the case are that Mst. Hafeez Bukhari, Respondent No. 2/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration against the petitioners and Respondents No. 1 & 3 to 12/defendants and contended that Muhammad Mehmood Durrani was owner in possession of agricultural land measuring 42-Kanals 10-Marlas situated in Chak No. 09/BC, Tehsil & District Bahawalpur. He died on 26/27.03.1987. Respondent No. 2 as well as Defendants No. 2, 3, 6 to 11 are sons and daughters of Muhammad Mehmood Durrani whereas Defendant No. 5/Ghulam Fatima is also legal heir being widow of said Muhammad Mehmood Durrani deceased. His property was devolved upon the legal heirs including the Respondent No. 2/plaintiff but Sarwar Mehmood/ Defendant No. 2 and Dr. Ayaz Mehmood/Defendant No. 3 and Mst. Kausar Mehmood got sanctioned alleged Mutation No. 1122 on the basis of forged and false gift deed dated 25.11.1981 just to deprive the plaintill and other legal heirs from right of inheritance of Muhammad Mehmood Durrani deceased. That Defendant No. 2 Sarwar Mehmood being attorney of Defendant No. 3, Dr. Ayaz Mehmood transferred the suit property in the name of Mst. Kausar Mehmood Defendant No. 9 through Mutation No. 1693 dated 13.04.1991 on the basis of agreement dated 31.03.1991. Defendant No. 3 time and again gave assurance to the plaintiff for giving her right in inheritance of her deceased father. That Hafiz Muhammad Karim being general power of attorney of his wife Mst. Kausar Mehmood further transferred the property in favour of Defendants No. 12 to 15 through Mutation No. 1693. Defendants have been asked time and again to transfer the share of the plaintiff but they refused which gainsayal resulted into filing of the suit.
Petitioners and Respondents No. 1 & 3 to 12/defendants filed contesting written statement, pleaded genuineness and legality of the impugned transactions/mutations. The trial Court framed issues, recorded evidence of the parties and vide judgment & decree dated 02.05.2016 decreed the suit in favour of Respondent No. 2 against Defendant No. 9 Kausar Mehmood and the plaintiff was entitled to avail her legal remedy for recovery of value of her share in the property of her father from Kousar Mehmood and suit was dismissed to the extent of Defendants No. 12 to 115. Respondent No. 2 filed an appeal and the petitioners filed cross objections and the appellate Court vide consolidated judgment & decree dated 02.10.2020 accepted the appeal of Respondent No. 2 and dismissed the cross objections of the petitioners. Hence, this Civil Revision.
-
Arguments heard. Record perused. -
As per record, the appellate Court
(learned Addl. District Judge, Bahawalpur)
passed the impugned consolidated judgment
& decree on 02.10.2020 and the petitioners
applied for obtaining the certified copy
of the said dietum on 09.12.2020 which copy
was prepared on 15.12.2020 but they filed
instant Civil Revision on 09.01.2021 after
93-days of the above decision. The petition
met with certain objections and
subsequently, after removing the
objections, the revision petition was
re-filed on 10,02.2021 i.e. after further
lapse of 31-days and total after lapse
of 124 days of passing the impugned judgment
& decree whereas Article 162-A of the
Limitation Act, 1908 [The Limitation
(Punjab Amendment) Act 2018] provides
only 90 days period for filing of the
Civil Revision from the date of decision
sought to be revised, as such instant
revision petition is barred by limitation
by 34 days. As the petitioner did not
remove the office objection within time,
rather remained mum for a considerable
period without any convincing cause,
thus it cannot be left open for a
delinquent party to challenge the adverse
order at the time of its own choice and
if any leniency is extended in this
regard then there would be no end of the
adversarial litigation which tantamount
to frustrate the ends of justice.
Reliance in this regard is placed on a
judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan
cited as Asad Ali and 9 others vs.
The Bank of Punjab and others
(PLD 2020 SC 736) the relevant portion
whereof is reproduced as under:
“14. In the context of controversy before us, namely whether limitation stops running if an appeal is filed within time, even if it is returned for removing objections and re-filing the same, reference may usefully be made to a judgment of this Court reported as Lahore Development Authority v. Muhammad Rashid (1997 SCMR 1224), where this Court has clearly and categorically held as follows:
“Learned counsel appearing in support of this petition has not addressed us on the dismissal of the revision petition on the ground of limitation. On perusal of the impugned judgment, however, we find that dismissal of the revision petition as time-barred is unexceptionable. Revision petition was originally filed in the High Court on 29-12-1994. The Deputy Registrar (Judicial) raised certain objections and returned the revision petition on 4-1-1995 with the direction to remove the objections within seven days. Revision petition was, however, re-filed by the petitioner on 10-10-1995. Office raised an objection that the revision petition when re-filed had become time-barred by 247 days and the petitioner was therefore, asked to file an application for condonation of delay and it was then that the petitioner moved an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay. By that time, the revision petition, as observed by the learned Judge, had become barred by 300 days. Be that as it may, the delay was sought to be condoned on two grounds, viz that due to the change of office, the case file got mixed up in the heap of other files and could not be traced despite best efforts of the officials and the law as to limitation for filing the revision petition was misconstrued by the petitioner as previously no limitation was prescribed therefor. The application was supported by an affidavit of Deputy Director (Legal)/General Attorney of the petitioner. Both the grounds were repelled by the learned Judge holding that the objections raised by the Deputy Registrar of the High Court were not of such a nature as would require recourse to the office of the petitioner and in any case, it was not believable that the file could not be located for about a year. Note was also taken of the fact that no affidavit of the officials who were stated to have made the efforts to locate the file was placed on record nor was it shown as to what action was taken against the officials who failed in the discharge of their duties in locating the file. With respect to the second ground, it has been observed by the learned Judge that ignorance of law is no excuse and in this case, the change in law regarding the limitation for filing a revision petition was knowing to all the members of legal profession. The circumstances pointed out by the learned Judge quite clearly show that the petitioner’s officials acted with gross negligence in re-filing the revision petition. They took almost one year in doing what they were required to do in seven days and the explanation offered by them for this inordinate delay has not been found to be convincing by the learned Judge and rightly so in our view. It has not been denied that the High Court Rules and Orders empowered the Deputy Registrar to raise the objections and fix the time for removing the same. That being so, revision petition re-filed long after the expiry of the period specified by the office was rightly dismissed as time-barred. Even on merits. the view taken by the two Courts below consequent upon the findings recorded by them on the basis of the admitted documentary evidence was not open to any legitimate exception.”
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in a recent order dated 11.07.2023 passed in a case titled as Zulfiqar Ahmad vs. Malik Sarfraz (deceased) through his L.Rs.. etc. [C.P.No. 1334-L/2021] has held that the time consumed in removing the objections will be counted under limitation and if time consumed more than the provided in the limitation Act, then such matter will be dismissed as barred by time. The relevant portion of the order (supra) is reproduced as under:
“This petition is barred by 146 days. There is no application for condonation of delay. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petition was filed within time. However, record indicates that petition was filed on 23.01.2021 but office returned the file with objections and gave time to remove office objections which were not removed within time. Finally, after removal of objections the petition was filed on 07.07.2021. In this view of the matter, the petition was filed with a delay of 146 days. Consequently, this petition is dismissed as barred by time.”
Further, after expiry of statutory period of limitation, the verdicts in question has attained the status of finality/past and closed transaction. Reliance is placed on the case titled as Diamond International Corporation Limited vs. State Bank of Pakistan through Senior Deputy Director (2001 SCMR 659). Even otherwise, in the adversial litigation the rights of the parties are determined on the touchstone of legality as well as preponderance of evidence and the parties are (sic) with unalienable obligation to bring their claim, assertion and remedies within the four corner of law including the law of limitation as after expiry of the prescribed period of limitation a valuable right stood accrued in favour of the opposite party which (right) cannot be taken away lightly rather convincing reasons have to be furnished in this regard and the absence whereof rendered a delinquent litigant disentitled from discretionary relief, as such the instant Civil Revision is blatantly time barred. Reliance is placed on the case titled as Amir Ullah Jan vs. Member Board of Revenue (Colonies) Punjab & 3 Others (PLD 2013 Lahore 445), the relevant portion whereof is reproduced as under:--
“It is also clear that the conduct of a party that was so indolent as not to inquire about the fate of its case from its counsel; and after his demise by failing to engage a fresh counsel; and thereafter to delay for two decades the filing of present application for restoration of the petition actually tantamounts to abandonment of the cause. There is no merit for restoration of the writ petition which is apparently a speculative venture that is launched by an attorney who is interested to revive the proceedings in respect of land which is admittedly not in possession of the petitioner and was allowed to be retained by the Respondent No. 4. At best an interim order was made to prevent further allotment of such land.”
-
Furthermore, law of limitation plays
a pivotal role in the administration
of justice and an aggrieved person has
to approach the competent forum within
the prescribed period of limitation and
against the adverse order a party could
not be allowed to sleep over it for an
indefinite period and challenge it
at the time of its own choosing rather
the aggrieved party is placed under
legal obligation to avail its legal
remedy against the adverse decision
/order/ decree within the prescribed
statutory period of limitation before
the proper forum, whereas after expiry
of the stipulated period of limitation,
a tangible right stood accrued in favour
of the opposite party and such accrued
right cannot be frustrated merely on
whims and wishes of the indolent party,
Reliance is placed on cases cited as
Shahid Pervaiz alias Shahid Hameed
v. Muhammad Ahmad Ameen (2006 SCMR 631),
Messrs Blue Star Spinning Mills Ltd.,
vs. Collector of Sales Tax and others
(2013 SCMR 587), Ghulam Hussain Ramzan
Ali vs. Collector of Customs (Preventive)
, Karachi” (2014 SCMR 1594) and Ashiq
Hussain Sabri vs. Secretary Health,
Government of the Punjab & 8 others
(PLD 2011 Lahore 490 (D.😎. -
Further, the significance of limitation
cannot be mitigated by attributing it
mere a technicality rather it frustrates
the remedy of an indolent party and
also debars the jurisdiction of an
adjudicating forum to take cognizance or
adjudicate the matter on merits and law
of limitation cannot be bypassed to
rescue an indolent party who remained in
deep slumber over the infringement of
its rights. Reliance in this regard
is placed on cases cited as Ainuddin
and others vs. Abdullah and another
(2019 SCMR 880) and Asad Ali and 9
others vs. The Bank of Punjab and
others (PLD 2020 SC 736). -
As the instant revision petition is
blatantly time barred, as such there
is no need to decide the other discordant
issue raised therein on merits.
Reliance is placed on the case titled as
Muhammad Din vs. Abdul Ghani & Another
(2012 SCMR 1004). -
In view of above, this Civil Revision
is dismissed being barred by time. No
order as to costs.
(J.K.) Petition dismissed