' CH. MUHAMMAD MASOOD JAHANGIR, J. --- By filing the instant civil revision the petitioner has assailed the judgments and decrees dated 28.3.2001 and 30.10.2004 passed by the learned Trial Court as well as the learned lower Appellate Court respectively through which the declaratory suit as well as appeal filed by the petitioner/plaintiff were dismissed by the said Courts.
2. The facts germane for the disposal of the instant revision are that petitioners/plaintiffs filed a declaratory suit while alleging that one Laloo s/o Shera was owner of the agricultural land who died prior to the promulgation of Muslirh Personal Shariat Law and on his death the disputed property was mutated to his widow Mst. Fateh for maintenance as limited owner, that the Thal Development Authority acquired the said land and adjustment proceedings were conducted by the competent authority, that inheritance mutation No, 1350, dated 5.1.1952 was attested in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, but in pert partwar of the said mutation the halqa patwari entered the name of Mst. Allah Wasai the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants/respondents and the field staff of TDA allotted the land in adjustment proceedings in favour of respondent/defendant No, 1 instead of predecessor-in-interest of the parties, that the said adjustment proceedings as well as the- subsequent attestation of disputed mutation Nos. 85 and 94 being result of collusion and fraud were liable to be cancelled. The said suit was resisted by the respondent/defendant No, 1 by filing contested written statement. The learned Trial Court framed as many as eight issues, recorded the evidence produced by the parties and after appreciating the same the suit filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs was dismissed by the learned Trial Court where against the petitioners' filed appeal before the learned lower Appellate Court which has also been dismissed vide judgments and decrees referred in para-1 above. Feeling aggrieved the instant civil revision has been filed by the petitioners.
3. Arguments heard and record perused.
4. Without touching upon merits of the case it is straightaway noticed that the petitioners/plaintiffs had earlier filed a declaratory suit of identical nature before the learned Trial Court and a copy of plaint of the said suit is available at pages 126 to 129 of the instant file. The copy of said plaint was got exhibited by the respondents/defendant on the record of learned Trial Court as Exh.D12. The perusal of para-9 of the said plaint reveals that petitioners/plaintiffs had earlier filed a declaratory suit on the same cause of action, which was dismissed as withdrawn by the petitioners/plaintiffs after making statement to this effect vide order dated 3.3.1981 with permission to file a suit afresh and thereafter the suit Exh.D12 was filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs. The said case was fixed for production of evidence of the defendants when the same was dismissed due to non-prosecution on behalf of the petitioners/plaintiffs on 11.1.1988. According to para-11 of the plaint Exh.D12 the petitioners/plaintiffs claimed that cause of action had arisen on 20.7.1978 whereas the instant suit was filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs before the learned Trial Court on 20.6.1993 i,e, after elapse of 15 years.
5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs that the petitioners/plaintiffs were co-owners in the disputed property and further in the cases of inheritance no limitation runs against a legal heir to seek declaration for his Sharai share in the legacy of the deceased is without substance. The case-law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners reported as ANWAR AHMAD v. Mst. NAFIS BANO THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS (2005 SCM R 152), WALI AND 10 OTHERS v. AKBAR AND 5 OTHERS (1995 SCM R 284) and MUHAMMAD ANWAR AND 2 OTHERS v. KHUDA YAR AND 25 OTHERS (2008 SCM R 905) is not applicable to the facts and circumstarces of the instant casc. The petitioners/plaintiffs themselves had earlier filed a suit on the same lines, but then same was dismissed as withdrawn with permission to file afresh and thereafter a second suit was filed which was also dismissed due to non-appearance of the parties. Then the suit in hand was filed by the present petitioners/plaintiffs on 20.6.1993 whereas in the earlier suit they claimed that cause of action had accrued to them on 20.7.1978. I am of the firm view that once limitation starts running, no subsequent event can stop the same and it depends upon the maxim that law favours the vigilant and not the indolent. The said view is fortified by the dictum laid down in the judgments reported as NOOR AKBAR THROUGH ATTORNEY V. ALLAH YAR AND 7 'OTHERS (2008 YLR 854), MUHAMMAD ISLAM V. 'INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ISLAMABAD AND ' OTHERS (2011 SCMR 3) anu MUHAMMAD RUSTAM AND ANOTHER V. Mst. MAKHAN JAN AND OTHERS (2013 SCM R 299).
6. The learned Trial Court as well as the learned lower Appellate Court has rightly answered issue.
No, 2 in favour of the respondents/defendants. And against the petitioners/plaintiffs while declaring that the suit filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs was hopelessly time-barred. Even otherwise the petitioners/plaintiffs had flied second suit in the ' year 1981 on the same subject against the respondents/defendants who appeared before the learned Trial Court and proceedings remained continued for seven years, which was dismissed fur non-prosecution on 11.1.1988 when it was fixed for production of evidence of the defendants, therefore, under Order IX, Rule 9, CPC the petitioners/plaintiffs were also precluded from bringing fresh suit in respect of same cause of action. The learned counsel for the petitioners is unable to rebut such aspect of the case as well. It is settled principle that civil law is a law of omissions and commissions and the parties are bound by their acts performed before the courts of law during the judicial proceedings. It cannot be left at the choice of the parties to select the time for filing their lis, but the law has to take its course according to the schedule framed by it. The rights accrued in favour of the rival party cannot be taken away unless sufficient cause is shown for filing the suit beyond limitation, but in the present case it is proved on record that knowingly the third suit was filed after the expiry of !Imitation provided by law and there was no justification to coldly the same. The suit filed by the petitioners was not only hopelessly time-barred, but the same was also not maintainable, which was rightly dismissed as well as the appeal by .Both the courts below on the valid reasons. The learned counsel for the petitioners is unable to point out any misreading or non-reading of evidence as well as any illegality or jurisdictional defect in the judgments passed by both the courts below. I do not feel it necessary to dilate findings regarding merits of the case on rest of the issues as it will be sheer wastage of time and even otherwise the same have already been considered by the learned courts below and there does not appear any apparent season to differ therewith. The instant cavil revision is dismissed. Civil revisor)