' CH. NAEEM MASOOD, J.---By way of instant constitutional petition order dated 5-7-2000, passed by respondent No,1, Member (Judicial-IV), Board of Revenue Punjab has been assailed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Khanewal allotted the land in dispute measuring 14-Acres 18-Marlas to Jalal Din (the petitioner's father) on 14-5-1971 for a period of 15 years under 15 Years Lease Scheme under section 10(3) of Colonization of Government Lands Act 1912 and notification dated 24-4-1971 was issued by the Board of Revenue. Jalal Din remained in possession of the land in dispute till his death and after his death the petitioner is in cultivating possession of the same upto date. On 4-2-1980, the land was resumed from the name of the petitioner's father and allotted to respondent No,3 on 28-7-1982 under Gallantry Awardees Scheme. This matter is under litigation in between the parties.
3. The appeal filed by the petition before the Additional Commissioner Revenue, Mull= Division, succeeded.
4. Respondent No,3 filed a revision petition before respondent No,1 which was time barred. An application under section 5 of the Limitation Act was also filed. Respondent No,1 did not advert to the aspect of limitation and disposed of the revision petition through the impugned order which is challenged before this Court.
5. The learned counsel of the petitioner has vehemently argued that as the revision petition was barred by limitation, it could not be decided without deciding the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act.
7. The learned Assistant Advocate General supports the impugned order, whereas the learned Advocate of respondent No,3 contends that as the matter has been dilated upon on merits, the lapse not to consider the point of limitation is not fatal to the disposal of revision petition filed before respondent No,1. I have heard the learned counsel of the parties and have perused the record.
8. The question of limitation is to be considered first before the matter is decided on merits by the Court or the tribunals. This having not been done, a gross illegality was committed by respondent No,1, which is violative of the principles laid down by the Honourable apex Court in PLD 1985 SC 153 (Hakeem Muhammad Boota v. Habib Ahmed). The Honourable apex Court has held as follows:--- "The words of section 3 of the Limitation Act are mandatory in nature in that every suit instituted after the period of limitation shall, subject to the provision of sections 4 to 25 of that Act be dismissed although limitation has not been set up as a defence. If from the statement in the plaint the suit appears to be barred by limitation, the plaint shall be have to be rejected also under Order VII, Rule 11 C.P.C. The law, therefore, does not leave the matter of limitation to the pleadings of the parties. It imposes a duty in this regard upon the Court itself. There is a chain of authority, and a detailed discussion of the same is not necessary, I lay down that limitation being a matter of statute and the provisions being mandatory, it cannot be waived and even if waived can be taken up by the party waiving it and by the courts themselves. In Sitharama v. Krishnaswami (1), where the defendants had pleaded the bar of limitation but the trial Court had held that they having admitted their liability for the amount in resisting the plaintiff's application in a previous suit, were estopped on general principles of law and that the defendants were not estopped and it was observed that "the bar of limitation cannot be waived and suits and other proceedings must be dismissed if brought after the prescribed period of limitation" and that "the Judge cannot on equitable grounds, enlarge the time allowed by the law, postpone its operation, or introduce exceptions not recognized by it". The same Court in a subsequent case Ramamurthy v. Gapayya (1), reiterated that the parties cannot stop themselves from pleadings the pro visions of the statute of limitation. The Lahore High Court also took a similar view in Kunda Mal v. Firm Daulat Ram (2), and held that "there is abundant authority in support of the proposition that objections regarding limitation cannot be waived and that even if they are waived they can be taken up again by the parties waiving them or by the courts themselves."
9. In the light of the commandment made by the Honourable Supreme Court in this respect, the learned Member Board of Revenue committed an illegality in failing to advert to the fact of limitation and the revision petition before him being barred by time.
10. Besides, as the case has been rushed through in haste without adverting to the limitation, therefore, the interest of justice demands that the merits should also be revisited along with the question of limitation.
7. In sequel thereof, the writ petition is accepted and the case is remanded to respondent No,1 to decide the lis between the parties afresh on merits, after taking note of the fact of the revision petition being barred by time. The parties are left to bear their own costs.