' CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.---Brief facts out of which the present appeal arises are that the land of respondents Nos.2 and 3 was acquired by respondent No.1 for the appellants. The Land Acquisition Collector announced the award dated 10-10-2000. The appellants submitted reference before the District Collector, Gujrat, in which they have taken a stand in paragraph No.9 that the reference is within limitation period, which was filed before the said Authority on 9-4-2001 and the order was also passed by the Deputy Commissioner on the same day in the following terms:-- "District Attorney to process please"
' The same was sent to the Referee Judge on 13-4-2001. The respondents filed application under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. Before the Referee Judge that the reference filed by the appellants is time- barred. The application was allowed by the Referee Judge vide order dated 16-6-2003, hence the present appeal.
2. Learned counsel of the appellants submits that the Referee Judge erred in law to dismiss the reference as time-barred without framing the issue; in the circumstances of the case, the point of limitation is a mixed question of law and facts, therefore, the impugned order is passed by the Referee Judge without application of mind and has passed the same in violation of the mandatory provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1894. Learned counsel of the respondents submits that the Referee Judge has passed the order keeping in view the dates mentioned by the appellants in the reference and found that the reference filed by the appellants is time-barred, therefore, the impugned order is valid.
' Learned counsel of the appellants in rebuttal submits that the award announced by the Land Acquisition Collector is void, therefore, the limitation cannot run against the void order, but this fact was also not considered by the Referee Judge in the impugned order.
3. We have given our anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. We are of the view, keeping in view the impugned order and the reference in a juxtaposition, that the question of limitation in the present case cannot be decided without framing the issue qua the limitation as in the present case, the controversy cannot be resolved keeping in view the facts of this case. The Referee Judge has not considered this aspect of the case.
4. In view of what has been discussed above, we believe that it was not a case in which, the appellants could be straightaway non-suited on the ground of limitation by rejecting their plaint/reference. The appellant's contention that they had filed reference before the Collector within time on 9-4-2001, whereas according to respondents Nos.2 and 3, it was time barred when it was presented before the Referee Judge on 13-4-2001. This fact brings the case in the area, which requires the investigation, for which evidence was required to be recorded. Valuable rights of the parties are involved in this case and it was not proper to rush through the whole affair, therefore, the trial Court should have provided reasonable opportunity to the parties to establish their respective pleas regarding the question of limitation before deciding this question. We have come to the conclusion that keeping in view the contents of the plaint, a definite conclusion that the suit/reference is barred by law of limitation, cannot be arrived. Therefore, the impugned order/judgment is not in accordance with law laid down by the Superior Courts. In arriving to this conclusion, we are fortified by the law laid down in the following judgments:-- ' Yahya Bakhtiar v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1993 Quetta 78; ' Fatima Moeen v. Additional District Judge, Sheikhupura 1992 SCM R 1199.
Be that as it may, we feel that in view of the facts and circumstances of this case, the plaint/reference could not be rejected as was done by the trial Court.
' We, therefore, accept this appeal, set aside the impugned order/judgment and remand the suit/reference to the trial Court for fresh decision.
5. Learned counsel for the parties feel that if the learned Senior Civil Judge has to record evidence on the issue of limitation, he may do so on all issues arising out of the suit. We, therefore, direct the learned Senior Civil Judge to strike all the issues including the issue of limitation, record the evidence on all the issues and then decide the whole suit in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear before the Referee Judge on 25-5-2005, who is directed to decide the matter in accordance with law preferably within six months. The parties and their counsel are directed to cooperate with the Referee Judge, so that the matter may be decided within the prescribed period.
In case any of the parties/its counsel fails to cooperate with the Referee Judge, then the Referee Judge is directed to invoke the penal provisions against the said party.