1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL SOOMRO, J.---Granted.
2. The defendant No.3 has brought the instant application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. And prayed for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by law under section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1908 hence, the suit filed by the plaintiff is liable to be rejected.
2. ' By this application, the learned counsel for the defendant No.3 submits that suit is barred by res judicata, the suit is hopelessly barred by time. The plaintiff knowingly to avoid the implication of Article 91 of the First Schedule of the Limitation Act has not challenged declaration or cancellation, as the suit ought to have been filed within three years from the cause of action. The suit should have not admitted as the office has failed to examine the plaint for said purpose.: Even otherwise, the plaintiff has not mentioned cause to explain the delay of day to day. He submits that he may be heard. He has also filed relevant documents with the statement as he could not file with his application, which is taken on record. There is force in the submission of the learned counsel.
3. ' The learned counsel submits that the defendant No.3 is a bona fide purchaser and lawfull owner of the suit property as the suit land survey Nos.82, 83, 88, & 89 total area 17-21 Acres Deh Bijar Bhuti Tapoo Songal Taluka Karachi was purchased on 21-5-1997 by him from Mr. Firdous Hussain, sub- attorney Registered at No.981, dated 12-11-1995 of the attorney Haji Yousaf Ali constituted by the plaintiff and her co-sharer Mst. Rashida Bibi wife of (late) Muhammad Pir and Mst. Dilshad Bano Daughter of Hafiz Munawar under the law vide General Power of Attorney Registered at No 1752, dated 14-9-1995 in the office of Sub-Registrar of T-Division XIV Karachi. The Sub-Attorney Mr. Firdous Hussain son of Husein H. Molidina died on 19-6-1997 while the Attorney Haji Yousuf Ali son of Nazim Ali had died on 29-9-2002. He further submits that before purchasing the suit land, be/defendant No.3 had inquired about the powers of the transferors to . Make the transfer of land, which were found satisfactory. All the legal documents of powers were got checked in the offices where the competent authority had registered them under the law. The deed was made for the land purchased and deficit fee paid under the Stamp Duty Act, 1899.
4. ' The learned counsel advanced the arguments and invited the attention of the Court towards important aspect that on 25-10-1999, the sale deed, dated 21-5-1997 came in the knowledge of the plaintiff. The certified copies of such deed were obtained by her on or about 25-10-1999 from the office of Sub-Registrar of T-Division XIV Karachi, as such the plaintiff had acquired knowledge of sale-deed, dated 21-5-1997 much before 25-10-1999 but the plaintiff had not challenged the same or the General Power of Attorney or the Sub-Power of Attorney, on which basis the sale was made by her attorneys, in the competent Court of law within prescribed limitation under the law.
5. ' Learned counsel also pointed out that after long delay of 8 years, the plaintiff and her co-sharer jointly filed an appeal under section 161 of W.P. Land Revenue Act in the Court of District Officer (Revenue) City District Government Karachi for cancellation of the entry No.264/417, dated 28-7- 1997 made by the Mukhtiarkar Karachi West in favour of the defendant No.3 in respect of suit property. The appeal was heard and disposed of as barred by limitation and without jurisdiction on 30-11-2006.
6. ' Lastly, he submits that the price of suit land has increased in the year, 2006 and both the Attorneys also died, plaintiff started black mailing by different means to achieve goal. The three ladies executed the power of attorney in respect of the suit land in the year, 1995, out of whom the plaintiff is claiming as owner of entire land. The plaintiff has no legal character required under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act for declaratory suit.
7. ' The learned counsel has argued at length. In support of his arguments he relied on the case laws reported in PLD 1987 Lahore 4, 2007 YLR 3321, PLD 1985 Supreme Court 153, PLD 2003 Supreme Court 628, 1998 MLD 1818, 2000 SCMR 53, PLD 1967 Dacca 190 and 2007 CLC 1821.
8. Now, I convert my attention to the averments contained in the plaint. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed the present suit for declaration and cancellation in which claiming to be owner of the land survey Nos.82, 83, 88 & 89 total area 17-21 Acrs Deh Bijar Bhuti Tapoo Songal Taluka Karachi.
9. ' In Para.13 of the plaint, the plaintiff submits that the cause of action has accrued to the plaintiff for filing of this suit against the defendants, ' when the plaintiff came to know about the bogus general power of attorney/Annexure-E, dated 14-9-1995 and served a legal Notice, dated 1-3-1999. These words almost have already been mentioned in para. 10 of the plaintiff about the acknowledgement of the cause of action.
10. ' It is also mentioned in the plaint that plaintiff has moved a complaint with the Chairman Anti- Corruption Establishment, Government of Sindh Karachi against the defendants Nos.2 and 3 and as such an F.I.R. No.57 of 2007 was lodged. The plaintiff also preferred an appeal under section 161 of Land Revenue Act in the Court of the District Officer (Revenue) Karachi with prayer that the bogus entry be cancelled which was made in favour.Of defendant No.3 fraudulently by the defendant No.2.
11. ' The Court of District Officer (Revenue) Karachi has passed an order, dated 30-11-2006 which is annexed as 'H'. I have perused and it appears that the appeal was filed by the three ladies namely Mst. Rashida w/o Muhammad peer (2) Mst. Dilshad Bano d/o Late Hafiz Munawar and the plaintiff to get relief but consequent upon the order, it was not challenged in appeal provided in Revenue law rather this suit has been filed by one of them Mst. Shahida Khanum/plaintiff for whole suit land.
12. The suit alone filed by her itself shows and as such it could be presumed that the other two ladies have accepted the preliminary objection raised by the defendant No.3 as respondent in the Court of District Officer (Revenue) Karachi are still unanswered in the plaint. The law of Revenue Act also bars suit.
13. From scanning of the documentary record submitted by the defendant No.3 shows that admittedly, the transaction made through registered documents in his favour by the vendors/constituted attorney of the plaintiff and the co-sharers cannot be said illegal, unlawful and indefinite against the valuable consideration. The land has also been consolidated by the defendant No.4. In the light of cited case law reported in PLD 1987 Lahore at Page 4 in which the requirement to purchase the property in good faith is enumerated, the learned Judges of the Honourable Division Bench of Lahore High Court held i.e.:-- "Where purchaser of property had acted in good faith by taking all reasonable care to ascertain title of his vendor who was continued to be shown in revenue record to be owner of land, such transaction, held, would be protected under section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act".
14. ' It follows that the whole transactions made by defendant No.3 seems to be protected under .Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act. Here, I took opportunity to hold that in order to obtain the protection afforded by the said section, it is necessary to prove that
(1) the sale has been made against the valuable consideration (2) purchaser acted in good faith and (3) he had made reasonable inquiries to ascertain that the transferor had power to make the transfer.
15. On the other point mentioned in the plaint that the plaintiff has approached the Anti-Corruption Establishment where the plaintiff has lodged F.I.R. No.57 of 2007 against the defendants Nos.2 and 3.
16. What I say and am afraid of that the tendency of our society is growing up day to day to convert the civil litigation into criminal proceedings, which should be curbed with the sharp eyes by the Functionary and Courts. This Court has already declared and delivered by case law reported in 2007 YLR 3321 i.e.:-- "The law does not authorize Anti-corruption police to entertain any application of any private person in respect of private land. If a complaint of a private person pertains to the entry of land which is not owned by the government is allowed to be entertained it would amount to usurping the powers of revenue authorities provided under the Sindh Land Revenue Act, 1967."
17. ' Adverting to the facts of the case in hand, I have examined the case laws cited by the learned counsel. Honourable Supreme Court in the case (Hakim Muhammad Buta and others v. Habib Ahmed and others) reported in PLD 1985 Supreme Court at Page 153 in which the larger Bench of five learned Judges held that:- ' Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.3---Question of limitation where not a mixed question of law and fact- --Waiver by parties would not relieve Court itself of its duty under S.3---Waiver by Court of question of limitation was not contemplated---Duty of Court to notice point of limitation, whether plea of limitation was raised or not---Waiver of question of limitation was not permissible, even where period of limitation was prescribed by special or a local law, mandatory in nature.
18. ' In PLD 2003 Supreme Court at page 628, it was held that:- "a person seeking condonation of delay must explain delay of each and every day to the satisfaction of the Court and should also establish that the delay had been caused due to reasons beyond the control."
19. On the point of limitation this Court has also decided that cause to be initiated within reasonable time and unreasonable delay will amount to acquiescence, as reflected in the authority of Division Bench of this Court is reported in 1998 MLD, at page 1818 (Ardeshir Cowasjee and 4 others v. Clifton Cantonment Board and others), specifically law down as follows:-- "S.3---Acquiescence---Institution of suit/Constitutional petition after more than 7 years of accruing of cause of action---Effect--Such conduct would amount to acquiescence--- Proceedings of 7years back could not be challenged through suit or constitutional petition after such lapse.
20. ' In a case reported in 2000 SCMR 53, the Apex Court held it:-- "Clause (d) of Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C. Was applicable where the suit appeared to be prima facie barred by any law from perusal of statement in the plaint and no further inquiry was needed."
21. ' In a case (Burmah Eastern Ltd. v. Burmah Eastern Employees Union and others) reported in PLD 1967 Dacca 190 in which it had been held:- - ' Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) 0, VII R, 11---Rejection of Plaint--Suit found to be incompetent-- Duty of Court to reject the plaint--Principle involved in provision of R.11.
22. ' In a recent case reported in 2007 CLC 1821 in which it has been delivered that:-- "The plaint can be rejected under (d) of Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. Where the suit appears to be prima facie barred by any law from perusal of the statement in the plaint and no inquiry is needed. The question of limitation is always not a mixed question of law and fact and where the question of limitation is apparent on the face of record the Court can precede without any inquiry. Matter of limitation cannot be left to pleadings of the parties, but a duty was imposed on Court to notice the point of limitation, whether the plea of limitation was raised or not ' In this case admittedly the cause of action to the plaintiff accrued on 1-3-1999 as she stated when the plaintiff served notice to the defendant No.3. The proceedings can be filed within three years from the above mentioned date. The plaintiff has not filed any application for condonation of delay.
23. From the paras.10 and 13 of the plaint it is apparent that the suit is prima facie barred by limitation provided under the law of Limitation Act. It is a requirement of law that incompetent suit shall be buried at its inception. It is in the interest of the litigating parties and the judicial institutions itself.
24. The parties are saved with their time and unnecessary expenses and the Courts get more time to devote it for the genuine causes, therefore in the light of settled principles by Apex Court and this Court, I hereby allow the application under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C. And reject the plaint with no order as to costs.