1. ' SALMAN HAMID, J.---It seems that initially the applicant had filed Suit No,9 of 2006 against the respondent No, 1, which Suit was decreed in terms of judgment dated 18-7-2011. The record of the file further shows that no execution application was preferred against such decree nor any appeal was preferred inasmuch as that such suit was partly decreed to the extent that the applicant would not be dispossessed from the Suit Property viz. Flat No, A-19. 2nd Floor measuring 138 square yards, situated in building known as Al-Azam Apartments, Karachi (Property). However yet again Suit No,411of 2009 was filed by the applicant with the following prayers, in respect of the property:-- - "(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to order that the defendant be evicted from the half portion of Flat in question bearing No, A-19. 2" Floor, Block 13-A Al Azam Apartments, Gulshan-e-Iqbal Karachi and be further ordered to forthwith remove himself with his belongings from the said half portion of the flat in question and to hand over quiet, vacant and peaceful possession thereof to the plaintiff.
(b) That the defendant be ordered to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs,11,58,000 being the mesne profit for wrongful use and occupation of the said half portion of the flat in question with effect from 1990 till the date of filing of the present suit along with future mesne profits also and till the time of handing over possession to the plaintiff by the defendant.
(c) That the defendant, his servant agent, attorney, the member of the family or any other person or persons acting on his behalf perpetually restrained from raising any construction on the said half, portion of the flat in question.
(d) Any other relief or reliefs which this Hon'ble Curt may deem fit and proper be granted in the best interest of natural justice and equity.
(e) That the cost of the suit be ordered to be paid to the plaintiff.
2. ' After service, respondent No,1 filed written statement wherein among others, ground of limitation was also taken by way of legal objection "Et. Despite such legal objection and the fact that plaintiff himself at the time of filing of Suit No,411 of 2009 had filed an application under section 5 of Limitation Act, no issue regarding such limitation was framed by the trial court though as many as nine issues had been framed. This Suit too was decreed in favour of applicant in terms of judgment and decree dated 19-4-2011, which judgment and decree was assailed by the respondent No,1 by way of filing Civil Appeal No,166 of 2011. After hearing the parties, the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Karachi (East) came to the conclusion that the point of limitation was crucial and ought to have been decided first by the trial court. Resultantly the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Karachi (East) framed the issue regarding limitation and remanded the case back to the trial court for decision afresh.
3. I have looked into the file and judgment in quite detail and of the opinion that neither the court below have exercised jurisdiction nor vested in it by law or failed to exercise jurisdiction vested or acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In fact it would be seen from the impugned judgment that a patent wrong was found by the appellate . Court which goes to the root of the case i,e, limitation. The learned IIIrd Additional District Judge (East) rightly framed issues of limitation for decision afresh. There was no misreading/non-reading of fact and evidence and therefore the scope of review being extremely narrow cannot be exercised by this Court in a causal manner. Order passed by the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Karachi (East) does not suffer from any wrong. This revision application is found to be meritless and same is hereby dismissed along with the listed-applications.