5. Learned Trial Court after examining the plaint and documents appended therewith came to the conclusion that although there was no bar upon presentation of a fresh plaint after rejection of plaint by virtue of Order VII, Rule 13, C.P.C. Yet the suit was found to be barred by time. According to the learned Trial Court the limitation is to be reckoned from 8.11.1995 when the earlier suit was instituted and it expired on 9.11.2001 and the suit filed on 27.10.2006 is barred by time. The learned District Judge has affirmed The said findings of the learned Trial Court.
6. I find that both the learned Courts below have completely ignored the categorical statement in the plaint that the petitioners had never given the possession and remained in possession of their land alleged to have been -given in exchange to respondent No. 1. Needless to state that for the purposes of Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. Contents of the plaint are to be assumed to be correct. In case it is found at the trial that the petitioners continued in possession then date of said impugned exchange or even its knowledge would be of no relevance. The cause of action will-thus, be continuous and the option is with the petitioners to wait till such time that an actual threat to their possession became real, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mst. Lzzat v. Allah Ditta (PLD 1991 S.C. 165). The revision petition is accordingly allowed. Both the impugned orders passed by the learned Courts below are set aside. The result would be that the suit shall be deemed to be pending, The petitioners to appear before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nankana Sahib on 2.4.2008. The learned Senior Civil .Judge shall requisition the record summon the defendant's and proceed further to decide the suit on its merit in accordance with law. No order as to costs.
7. A copy of this judgment be immediately remitted to the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nankana Sahib. .