' JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.~ Respondents Nos..l to 10 filed a suit against the petitioners and against respondents Nos. 11 to 15 to challenge mutation of inheritance No.439 dated 31-3-1973 whereby the agricultural land belonging to Abdul Ghafoor was mutated in the name of his widow, namely, Mst.
Bashir Begum. The respondents-plaintiffs claim to be the collaterals of Abdul Ghafoor deceased.
Their declaratory suit was filed on 15-5-2004 i.e. More than 31 years after the date of the aforesaid mutation.
2. Subsequent to mutation No.439 Mst. Bashir Begum sold the suit-land to Muhammad Zaman (respondent No. 11) vide Mutation No.466 sanctioned on 29-9-1974. Through a registered sale-deed dated 10-2-1976 the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners purchased the property "from Muhammad Zaman through registered sale-deed dated 10-2-1976. This purchase was subsequently reflected in the revenue record through Mutation Na.489 sanctioned on 3-10-1983.
3. The petitioners filed their written statement before the learned trial Court and also filed an application under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. Praying for the rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit was time-barred. With their application the petitioners appended an order dated 7-5-1974 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) and an order dated 8-10-1977 passed by the Board of Revenue in revision. These orders show that the respondents-plaintiffs were fully aware of the inheritance Mutation No.439 and had challenged the same before the revenue forum through appeal and revision. Their appeal and revision had been dismissed respectively by the aforesaid orders dated 7-5-1974 and 8-10-1977. The respondents-plaintiffs concealed these orders from the Court.
4. The learned trial Court came to the conclusion that in view of the aforesaid documents the suit was patently time- barred. As a result, the plaint was rejected vide order dated 26-5-2006. The respondent-plaintiffs preferred an appeal against the rejection of their plaint which appeal has been allowed by the learned Additional. District Jude vide order dated 4-11-2006. The petitioners impugns this order.
5. The reason, which prevailed with the learned appellate Court for dismissing the application under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. And for remanding the case for trial, was that the law of limitation is not attracted in the case of mutation of inheritance. Presumably the learned Appellate Court proceeded on the basis of the case titled Ghulam Ali and 2 others v. Mst. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi (PLD 1990 SQ 1). Learned counsel, for the petitioners states, however, that in the present case where the respondents-plaintiffs were not only fully aware of the inheritance mutation but had also challenged the same before the revenue forums, the provisions of the Limitation Act, were squarely attracted. This submission has merit and could not be controverted on behalf of the respondents- plaintiffs. The precedent case above is, therefore, clearly distinguishable.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents-plaintiffs then submitted that while rejecting a plaint under Order VII, rule 11 C.P.C.,. Only the contents of the plaint have to be seen. This submission can be accepted as a general statement of the law. However, it is not to be applied mechanically and particularly where resort to the rule would be inequitable and would work injustice on the party such as the present petitioners.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners drew the attention of the Court to the objectionable conduct of the respondents- plaintiffs. He firstly referred to paragraph-9 of the plaint filed by the respondents wherein they stated that they came to know of the fraud in respect of the inheritance of Abdul Ghafoor only a short while before filing of the plaint. The suit of the respondents, it may be noted was filed on 15-5-2004. The averment in paragraph-9 of the plaint is obviously false even to the knowledge of the plaintiffs, because learned counsel for the respondents was not in a position to deny that they had challenged the mutation in favour of Mst. Bashir Begum before the revenue forums as far back as 1974 but without success. A plaintiff, who is not truthful in material particulars, cannot be given ainy concession particularly in matters where he is seeking discretionary relief. On the other hand defendants such as the petitioners are entitled to protection from protracted civil suits which are, in the end, bound to fail.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs next argued that the mutation in favour of Mst.
Bashir Begum carried a pedigree table which showed the interest of the respondents-plaintiffs in the suit property. On this basis it was contended that Muhammad Zaman respondent No. 11 could not claim to be a bona fide purchaser of the suit property from Mst. Bashir Begum. This contention in the context of the present case is wholly misconceived. Even if it is, for a moment, accepted that Muhammad Zaman was not a bona fide purchaser from Mst. Bashir Begum, this has no bearing on the title of the petitioners. As noted above, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners had purchased the property from Muhammad Zaman who . Clearly was the owner on record and was also in possession of the suit property. It is also relevant that the petitioners and before them their predecessor-in-interest are in possession of the suit property since 1976. Before that Muhammad Zaman was in possession since 1974. The respondents-plaintiffs did not challenge the sales made in. Favour of Muhammad Zaman and the predecessor-ininterest of the petitioners. They, through their own acts and omissions enabled Mst. Bashir Begum and Muhammad Zaman to deal with the suit property as ostensible owners. The respondents, therefore, cannot be allowed to impugn the title which has been enjoyed by the petitioners for a continuous period of more than 31 years.
9. The above circumstances are sufficient to justify rejection of the plaint under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. If any authority for this legal proposition is required, reference can be made to S.M. Shafi Ahmad Zaidi v. Malik Hassain Ali Khan (Moin) (2002 SCM R 338). Additionally, as noted above, it is apparent that the respondents are not entitled to relief by way of declaration and permanent injunction because these reliefs are in the discretion of the Court and can rightly be denied in appropriate cases such as the present one.
10. In view of the foregoing discussion, this petition is allowed. The order dated 4-1.1-2006 passed by the learned Appellate Court is set aside. As a result the rejection of the plaint by the learned trial Court vide order dated 26-5-2006 is affirmed.
11. The petitioners shall also be entitled to their costs throughout.
Revisipn dismissed.