' NOOR-UL-HAQ N. QURESHI, J. --- Through the instant application, the defendants seek rejection of plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. On the ground that from bare perusal of the contents of plaint, cause action accrued to the plaintiff on 20th November, 2000, whereas the suit was filed on 17.02.2010, therefore, the same is time-barred, which is liable to be dismissed.
2. The said application was contested by the plaintiff on the grounds that the application is not maintainable as the same is filed with mala fide intention just to linger on the case to frustrate the Court proceedings and to prolong the matter.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants/defendants has argued that the suit filed by the plaintiff is time-barred as cause of action was accrued to the plaintiff on 20th November, 2000 whereas the suit was filed on 17.02.2010. Suit of the plaintiff is also hit by Section 9 of Specific Relief Act, 1877. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the applicants/defendants relied upon following case-law:---
(1) 2000 SCMR 1305 (Maulana Nur-ul-Haq v. Ibrahim Khalil).
(2) 2014 SCMR 513 (Noor Din and another v. Additional District Judge and others); and
(3) PLD 2009 Lahore 52 (Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Leasing Ltd. v. Haq Knitwear (Pvt.) Ltd. And 2 others).
4. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff has argued that the application is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed as the same was filed with mala fide intention just to linger on the proceedings of the case as they are trying to delay the matter on one pretext or the other. The period for filing of suit for declaration and possession of immovable property is 12 years in view of Article 142 of Limitation Act, 1908, as such, the suit has been filed within time, therefore, the application of the applicants/defendants is mis-conceived, as such, the same is liable to be dismissed with special costs. In support of his contention, he relied upon case-law reported in "2007 YLR 2134 (Dhani Bux v. All Sher and others)".
5. I have heard arguments of both the sides and gone through the record with the able assistance of learned counsel for the parties as well as case-law referred on the subject.
6. Plaintiff has filed suit for declaration, possession through ejectment, recovery of mesne profit and permanent injunction against the defendants on 17.02.20104 before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Islamabad. It is alleged in the suit that suit property bearing House No, 4, Khayaban-e-lqbal, Sector F-7/3, Islamabad was purchased by the plaintiff from one Abdul Aziz vide registered sale-deed No, 1966, dated 23.7.1998 and the said house was duly transferred in the name of plaintiff vide transfer letter dated 04.6.2008 by the CDA. In November, 2000, plaintiff decided to hold a meeting of central working committee on 20.11.2000 in the said house. On the said date, some persons duly armed with deadly weapons occupied the house. Plaintiff immediately reported to the Inspector General Police, Islamabad vide complaint dated 21.11.2000, but no action was been taken and the matter is still pending with regard to registration of criminal case. The suit house is in use of defendant No, 1 since 2004.
7. The applicants/defendants filed application in hand for rejection of plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. On the ground of limitation. Under Article 142 of the Limitation Act, 1908, a period of 12 years has been prescribed for possession of immovable property, the time being counted from the date of dispossession. The suit was filed on 17.02.2010, it is well within time and hence not barred vis-a- vis the relief for possession. Learned counsel for the applicants/defendants Sardar Abdul Raziq has contended that the main relief in the suit is for declaration and injunction, possession being consequential, as such the prayer is barred by time, therefore, the entire suit would also be hit by limitation since once limitation starts it is continuous. In this regard, learned counsel's view is that Article 120 of the First Schedule to the Limitation Act would apply according to which limitation starts when the right to sue accrues. In the present case, the defendants are in possession of the suit house since 2000 and the suit in hand was filed on 17.02.2010, therefore, the same is barred by time. In this regard, it would be seen that under Article 120 of the Limitation Act the starting point of limitation is when the right to sue accrues i,e, the cause of action arises and this depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It is settled principle of law that where the suit is for declaration of title of disputed land, it cannot be barred by limitation so long as the plaintiff's right is a subsisting right and has not been extinguished as this gives a right to a continuing cause of action since every invasion thereof is a fresh cause of action.
8. It is pertinent to mention here that after filing of the suit, written statement, has been filed. From the divergent pleadings of the parties, issues were framed and the suit in hand was at the stage of recording of evidence when defendants filed the instant petition for rejection of plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C.
9. The cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicants/defendants are distinguishable, because the facts of every case are different from the other and each case is to be decided on its own perspective keeping in view the peculiar circumstances.
10. In view of my above observations, the instant C.M. Stands dismissed.
11. Perusal of order sheet/case diary reveals that after framing of issues, instead of producing their evidence, the defendants are trying to linger on the matter by filing miscellaneous applications.
Perusal of order sheet further reveals that on most of the dates of hearing plaintiff's witnesses were present but adjournments were sought on behalf of learned counsel for the defendants with one pretext or the other. Therefore, Deputy Registrar (O.S.) is directed to record the evidence expeditiously preferably within a period of one month.