' MUHAMMAD ALAM, J.---Petitioner/plaintiff felt aggrieved from order dated 18-11-2014, of the learned Distnet Judge Ghizer, that he passed in CFA No,65 of 2014, whereby, the learned first appellate court dismissed appeal.
2. Petitioner/plaintiff filed suit (C.S. No,34 of 2009) in the trial court of Civil Judge First Class Punial/Ishkoman, District Ghizer. Through the suit, petitioner/plaintiff prayed for possession of the suit land through exercise of right of pre-emption. In the plaint, petitioner/plaintiff pleaded that he is real brother of Mastana Khan (defendant No,1), who sold the suit land to defendants No,2 and 3.
In reply to the plaint, respondents filed written statement and pleaded that suit of the petitioner/plaintiff is time barred.
3. Learned trial court completed all trial proceedings and dismissed the suit through judgment dated 16-06-2014, holding that petitioner/plaintiff failed to prove the suit and the suit is time barred also. On appeal, learned first appellate court dismissed the appeal holding that the suit petitioner/plaintiff is time barred.
4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and have gone through the file. In the case in hand, learned two courts below have concurrently found that the suit of petitioner/plaintiff is time barred.
In this connection, learned first appellate court has taken up the only issue of limitation, discussed the same and have come to the conclusion that the suit is time barred. I have gone through Exh- D/1, which is copy of sale deed of the suit land and is written on 18-07-1990. Then Exh-D/2 was prepared on 26-08-2005, which is also sale deed of suit land. Learned counsel for parties admitted at bar that both the said two documents are regarding the sale of suit land. If we read these two documents with the examination-in-chief part of the statement of the plaintiff/plaintiff, it is abundantly clear that the suit is time barred. On 28-05-2013, learned trial Court recorded statement of plaintiff/plaintiff, wherein, he has stated that he came to know about the sale of suit land between defendants in the year 2005, i,e,, the very year of suit sale agreement. Suit has admittedly been filed in the trial court on 17-04-2009, as is evident from the date of institution of suit, in the copy of decree sheet. So, petitioner/plaintiff has filed this suit after about 4 years of his knowledge of suit sale agreement between defendants. Learned counsel for petitioner/plaintiff failed to point out any material irregularity in the impugned judgment, inviting interference of this Court. Nor the learned counsel for petitioner/plaintiff pointed out any misreading of evidence resulting to the impugned judgment.
5. The result is that this petition merits dismissal. Petition is dismissed. Petitioner to bear costs. This file be consigned to record.