1. ' SYED TAHIR ALI SHAH, J.--- Instant petition for leave to appeal filed in this Court is the outcome of judgment recorded by the Single Bench of the Chief Court N.As, dated 26-6-2007, whereby judgment decrees passed by the two subordinates Courts were maintained and the revisional petition dismissed.
2. ' Brief facts enshrined through pleadings of the parties are that one Shakoor Ali and his brother Raja Ali resident of Nagar Gilgit filed a suit with the Civil Judge, Gilgit against Zinat Shah for declaration cum possession of a piece of land in the year 1982. The land described in the heading of plaint as contended was given to the plaintiff's father by the then Mir of Nagar which later on improved by the plaintiff's father. The strained relation of the Mir with the plaintiff resulted the dispossession of the plaintiff of the suit land followed by transfer of said land to one Gorden the father of one Irshad.
3. The possession, as averred was regained by the plaintiffs, for some months but they were again dispossessed by defendants forcibly. He prayed the grant of decree for possession of the suit land as ancillary relief.
4. ' The defendant, on the other hand has set up a quite different story in his written statement and contended that the owner of the land in dispute was one Gorden and he was succeeded by his son Irshad. The later gifted the land in dispute to him some 25 years back. Besides, many legal points were also raised.
5. ' The trial Court after having a full investigation vide his judgment/decree dismissed the suit as not proved. In appeal the District and Sessions Judge, Gilgit confirmed the findings arrived at the ,trial Court vide judgment dated 26-3-1990. Still not contended petitioners filed a revision petition before the Chief Court N.As. But the result was not different from earlier ones. Hence this petition.
6. ' Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the two lower Courts including the revisional Court failed to take notice of the glaring inconsistencies in the statements of D.Ws., the misreading and non-reading of evidence by the Courts below. He further submitted that credible evidence led by plaintiffs/petitioners was over looked and not weighed in the golden scale of justice. However, no legal point was raised.
7. ' The learned counsel for respondent vehemently controverted the points so raised and argued that besides the plaintiffs failed to prove his case the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation.
8. ' We have given our thorough consideration to the points raised by both sides and also gone through the record minutely with the able assistance of learned counsel of the parties.
9. ' Before evaluating on the factual points coming across in the matter in hand we deem it proper to take the point of limitation first which is always a mixed question of law and facts. An additional issue vide order dated 21-4-2000 regarding limitation has been framed by the then Chief Justice Chief Court while the matter was under adjudication before him, and case was remitted back to the trial Court for his findings on the newly framed issues which was basically missing in the plaint.
10. This particular issue was decided against the plaintiffs/petitioners and was maintained up to the Chief Court N.As.
11. 'It is an admitted proposition that the plaintiff is duty bound to prove his claim within time. The findings arrived by the Courts below on the specific point do not expose any misreading and non- reading of the evidence brought on the record. The apex Court in the normal circumstances is reluctant to interfere in concurrent findings of facts unless some glaring and apparent draw backs are brought into the notice of the Court regarding any misreading or non-reading of the evidence which over looked by the subordinate Courts. We therefore, failed to find out any apparent misreading or non-reading of evidence to weigh the arguments of the learned counsel on this point.
12. ' The learned counsel during the arguments has drawn our attention to a document marked as Exh.P.1 at page-41 of the trial Court file and contended that the matter was pending before the Ulema Board, which transferred the case to Civil Judge after abolition of such Ulema Board vide notification issued by provincial Government of Northern Areas, therefore, the suit is not barred by limitation, being a continuous process.
13. ' Having a glance of the documents referred above it appears to be an original application which production has been made by the plaintiff along with plaint. Here the question arises as to why the original one left with the plaintiff when it was meant to submit before the Ulema Board, meaning thereby that the matter was not subjudiced before the Ulema Board. Moreso the applicant has prayed the then A.C. To send the matter to the Ulema Board and it does not disclose that any matter was pending before the Ulema Board between the parties. In other words through this application, that too never presented before Ulema Board, the plaintiff/petitioner wanted to involve the Ulema Board for the first time in the dispute. Moreover, the plaintiff has not availed the provision contained in rule 6 of Order VII, C.P.C. To bring his stale claim within the limitation. This point also fails as the same does not help the IC petitioners in any way.
14. ' In the light of whatever discussed we do not find any cogent reason to allow the instant petition which is declined accordingly. File.