' The plaintiff-respondents, herein filed a suit for possession in the Court of Civil Judge, Dhirkot on 10th April, 2004, alleging therein that the land falling in Khewat No, 23, comprising Survey No, 394, measuring 14 Kanals, 4 Marlas, Survey No, 626, measuring 6 Marlas, Survey No, 572, measuring 18 Marlas, Survey No, 579/1, measuring 12 Kanals 2 Marlas, Survey No, 579/2 measuring 2 Kanals 3 Marlas, Survey No, 580/1 measuring 2 Kanals 2 Marlas, and Survey No, 597, measuring 28 Kanals 12 Marlas, total land measuring 60 Kanals 7 Marlas, is in the ownership of the plaintiffs and other co- sharers. The other co-sharers are in possession of their respective land. Land measuring 30 Kanals 14 Marlas comprising Survey Nos.580/1 and 597 due to private partition is in their ownership. Firstly, their father remained in possession and after his death, Plaintiffs No, 1 to 5 and husband of Plaintiff No, 6 remained in possession of the land. Plaintiff No, 1 was residing in Pakistan for educational purposes. The defendant has occupied the land measuring 8 Kanals, bearing Survey No, 597. After necessary proceedings the trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs. An appeal filed by the defendant, petitioner herein, in the Court of Additional District Judge was dismissed on 17th June, 2009. Second appeal filed by the petitioner in the High Court has also been dismissed through the impugned judgment on 24th April, 2014. The petitioner has challenged the said judgment of the High Court by way of this petition for leave to appeal.
2. Syed Shafqat Hussain Gardezi, Advocate, counsel for the petitioner, argued that the judgment and decree of the High Court is against law and the record. The suit of the plaintiff was beyond the limitation. No issue was framed in respect of the point of limitation, therefore, the judgment is not maintainable. The learned counsel argued that the nature of land is recorded as khalsa land in the revenue record. The entries in favour of the plaintiff-non-petitioners were recorded factitiously while tempering with the record. A khalsa land cannot be entered in the name of private parties.
The learned counsel referred to the document annexure "PB" where the land is shown as khalsa land and argued that the said record was produced in the trial Court but has not been considered by the trial Court. His case is proved that land was a khalsa land. He requested for grant of leave to appeal.
3. While controverting the arguments, Raja Sajjad Ahmed Khan, Advocate, counsel for the plaintiffs, respondents herein, argued that there are concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Courts below. The concurrent findings of facts recorded by the two Courts below and affirmed by the High Court are immune from interference by this Court. The learned counsel relied upon the record of rights pertaining to years 2002 BK., 1961, 1973, 1995-96, 2002-03 (A.D) annexed with the petition for leave to appeal by the petitioner and argued that from the said record, the trial Court as well as the two appellate Courts drew the conclusion that the plaintiff-respondents are owners of the land.
The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of this Court delivered in the case reported as Mst. Shari fa Begum & 4 others us. Ali Afsar Khan [2006 SCR 191.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It appears from the record that the plaintiffs filed a suit for possession in respect of Survey No, 597 measuring 8 kanals.
The trial Court drew the conclusion that the plaintiffs have proved that they are owners of the land and decreed the suit in their favour. The findings of facts recorded by the trial Court were concurred by the First Appellant Court and these were affirmed by the High Court. The concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Courts below and affirmed by the High Court cannot be interfered with by this Court unless there is misreading or non-reading of documentary or oral evidence having bearing on the facts of the case, is brought into the notice of the Court. In the instant case no such misreading or non-reading of the record is pointed by the counsel for the petitioner.
5. I have also perused the record of rights pertaining to year 2002 B.K. Record of rights pertaining to years 1961, 1973, 2002-03, where initially Meer Ahmed and later on, the father of the plaintiff- respondents and lastly, the plaintiff-respondents are entered as owners of the land. There appears no misreading or non-reading of the record. The concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Courts below and affirmed by the High Court cannot be disturbed by this Court.
6. The question of limitation was not raised in the lower Court. Here it may be observed that the question of limitation is a !Mixed question of law and facts. The land owner has a right to file suit for possession at any time if he files a suit on the question of title. The question of limitation is attracted in a case where a land owner is dispossessed and in that case the suit will be decided under Article 142 of the Limitation Act. No legal question is involved in the instant petition for leave to appeal. Leave cannot be granted in every case only to create false hope in the mind of a litigant.
' The result of the above discussion is that finding no force in this petition for leave to appeal, it is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.