' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---This petition has been filed against the judgment, dated 29th May, 2001 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby the Civil' Revision No,1062 of 1984 has been allowed.
2. Precisely stating the facts of the case are that Muhammad Din (deceased) had two wives namely Mst. Said Bibis(Senior) and Mst. Said Bibi (Junior). After second marriage of the deceased, Mst. Said Bibi (Senior) shifted to her parents' house and started living there. Mst. Said Bibi (Senior) had two daughters, namely Mst. Nazir Begum and Mst. Fatima Bibi. Mst.' Said Bibi (Junior) had also two daughters and three sons. Din Muhammad (deceased) started living with his second wife. The deceased is stated to have gifted his total property measuring 418 Kanals in favour of three minor sons (respondent No,1 to 3) who filed a civil suit against him, which was decreed on 28th February, 1973. Later on Muhammad Din (deceased) borrowed Rs,80,000 from minors through their mother and maternal uncle and a second decree, dated 25th July, 1973 was also passed in favour of the respondents. It is to be noted that both the above decrees remained unchallenged during the lifetime of Muhammad Din, who died on 18th June, 1976. The petitioners filed a civil suit seeking declaration to the effect that they are owners in possession of the land and decree dated 25th July, 1973 is fictitious and without consideration. The suit was decreed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Sargodha, vide judgment, dated 16th March; 1980. An appeal was preferred by the respondents, which has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Sargodha, on 16th February, 1984.
The respondents preferred civil revision before the High Court, which has been allowed by means of impugned judgment. As such instant petition for leave to appeal has been filed.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the impugned judgment, relevant paragraph therefrom is reproduced herein below:--- "(6) Admittedly, the suit was filed by the respondents' side and it were they who had to prove the averments they had made in the suit and not the petitioners and the mutation they have referred was not the subject matter of the suit. So far as the limitation is concerned the very statement of Said Bibi, mother of the respondents, in cross-examination is that she had protested that why everything has been given to them which means she had disputed the gift at the relevant time and she had the knowledge on (25-11-1979). Once the limitation as prescribed by law began to run, if any exception was to be taken the respondent's side they should have made an application with all the contentions and then there should have beeft an adjudication by the Court. Para. No,9 of the plaint which related to the cause of action mentions that the cause of action arose on 25-7-1973 the date of the impugned decree and the date of death of Muhammad Din was mentioned as 18- 6-1976 and when they themselves had written that date, they were to face the limitation."
' A perusal of above para. If is read with the contents of the plaint, prima facie it seems that petitioners had a no knowledge during the lie time of Muhammad Din about passing of the decree, dated 25th July, 1973. However, no sooner he died, they came to know about the said decree, as such, they filed suit for redressal of their grievance on 6th October, 1976. In view of such state of affairs, leave to appeal is granted inter-alia to consider as to whether the petitioners have rightly been non-suited by the learned High Court without taking into consideration the attending circumstances of the case. Stay order already granted vide order, dated 24th December, 2001 to continue.