Through this civil revision, the revision petitioner has assailed the validity of order dated 30.11.2013 whereby an application filed by the petitioner as defendant for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was dismissed.
2.Precisely, the facts of the instant civil revision are that Shoukat Hussain, father of respondents died on 30.12.1991, left behind two properties as his estate and surviving legal heirs plaintiffs 1 to 5 and Defendants No. 1, 3 and 4. Except widow of Shoukat Hussain deceased, Sakina Shoukat (died on 14.10.2007), and Mst. Robina (Defendant No. 1), the others heirs were living in U.S.A. All the respondents executed general power of attorney about aforementioned two properties in favour of their mother Sakina Shoukat on 06.02.1992. Plaintiffs who are now respondents filed a suit for cancellation of fake/illegal documents) those are power of attorney, sale-deed, recovery of possession and also sought permanent injunction as consequential relief on 30.07.2012. The main contention of the plaintiffs/respondents was that in the year 2007 when their mother Sakina Shoukat was on death bed made a disclosure that Defendant No. 1 Mst. Robina, who is also Respondent No. 7 alongwith other defendants in presence of Defendant No. 3 Naveeda Abbas Respondent No. 8 daughter of Shoukat Hussain forcibly on gunpoint after extending threats of dire consequence to kill Sakina Shoukat obtained her signatures on forged documents and also got signatures of Defendant No. 3 as identifying witness and on the basis of these documents, transferred one of the property i.e. shop ,situated at Hall Road of deceased to the present petitioner on throw away price.
3.Only Defendant No. 2 Muhammad Irfan Polani present petitioner contested the suit by filing written statement totally denied and controverted the assertions made in the plaint whereas Defendant No. 3 Mst. Naveeda Abbas (Respondent No. 8) filed consenting written statement and sought that the suit may be decided on merits.
4.The present controversy started when the present petitioner filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking rejection of the plaint on various grounds including limitation. The application was contested by the respondents. However, during the pendency of the said application, the learned counsel for the petitioner pressed the said application only to the extent that the suit was filed after expiry of limitation and liable to be rejected.
5.While advancing the arguments, learned counsel for the revision petitioner stated that in clear terms without any ambiguity in Para No. 9 of the plaint filed on 30.07.2012 by the respondents Contended that it came to their knowledge in the year 2007 that forged documents were got prepared by defendants by extending threats to Sakina Shoukat (since deceased). Also contended that coercion was also displayed upon respondent Mst. Naveeda Abbas to sign the power of attorney as identifier. According to the learned counsel after having knowledge in this respect in 2007 under Article 91 of the first schedule of the Limitation Act, 1908 three years period is provided to seek cancellation of instruments/documents whereas the suit for cancellation of documents was filed on 30.07.2012 without any justification for such long delay. Learned counsel stated that learned trial Court committed error in law while passing impugned order and sought that same be set aside, application may be allowed and plaint be rejected.
6.Conversely, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the impugned documents were result of fraud and forgery, therefore, the suit was not required to be filed in view of period as provided under Article 91 of The Limitation Act, 1908, rather relevant Article is 120 of said Act which provided six years period, thus, the suit was filed within limitation and that application was legally and correctly dismissed by the trial Court.
7.I have carefully perused the record and gave due consideration to the arguments, addressed by learned counsel for the parties.
8. The facts are admitted that Plaintiffs No. 1 to 6 and Defendants/Respondents No. 1, 3 and 4 are children of Shoukat Husssa in deceased who left behind two properties one house situated at Karim Park, Bhalla Stop, Multan Road, Lahore and the other a shop at Hall Road, Lahore. It is also common ground between the parties that except Sakina Shoukat (since deceased) widow of Shoukat Hussain and his daughter Naveeda Abbas were living in Lahore and remaining legal heirs in U.S.A. It also transpires that all children of Shoukat Hussain deceased executed and constituted general power of attorney in favour of their mother Sakina Shoukat on 04th January, 1992 about the disputed property. She was also authorized to appoint any person as special/substitute attorney. It is also evident that subsequently legal heirs of Shoukat Hussain deceased, sons Nadeem Shoukt, Anjum Shoukat and daughter Naveeda Abbas executed separate power of attorney in favour of Sakina Shoukat from U.S.A. on 22.01.1992, respectively and thereafter the disputed power of attorney was executed on 31.01.2000, which according to the contention of the plaintiffs/respondents was result, of displaying "coercion" upon Sakina Shoukat and Naveeda Abbas. The main question through present revision petition needs intention and decision by this Court is as to whether the limitation shall be applied under Article 91 or Article 120 of the first schedule of The Limitation Act, 1908. If first Article is applicable, then definitely the suit was barred under limitation and if it is put up under the second Article, then it would be within limitation. Few more questions need intention.
From the perusal of impugned general power of attorney dated 31.01.2001 it shows that same was signed by the surviving legal heirs which apparently looked genuine and duly executed document.
From another angle, in case, it came to the knowledge of the plaintiffs/respondents that illegal documents were prepared by use of force and threat in the year 2007, so civil suit for cancellation of documents under Section 39 of The Specific Relief Act must be filed within three years from the knowledge of such documents, that was in 2007 under Article 91 of Limitation Act, 1908. In addition to it, while keeping in mind human factor in case a highhandedness and illegality of such nature was committed, the effected party should have reacted immediately and not waited for more than five years in filing of the suit.
9. The basic document(s) is/are powers of attorney's on the basis of which the sale-deed (impugned) was executed/prepared, thus, the plaint/suit was filed under Section 39 of The Specific Relief Act, 1877. This Court is of confirmed view that the suit was filed with delay and without any justification so, it was badly hit under the period of limitation. It falls under the ambit of Article 91 and not Article 120 of The Limitation Act, 1908.
Reliance can be placed on judgment of Apex Court reported as "Dr. Muhammad Javed Shafi vs. Syed Rashid Arshad and others:' (PLD 2015 Supreme Court 212) in which it has been held as under: "Suit filed by the plaintiff in the present case was in fact for cancellation of the documents on the allegations of fraud, forgery and misrepresentation, which (suit) squarely fell within the purview of S.39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 and per Art. 91 of the First Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1908, the prescribed period of limitation for such suit was three years--Plaintiff was primarily challenging the documents as being invalid against him on the ground of fraud, forgery, misrepresentation etc., and as a consequential relief he unambiguously was seeking a decree for possession of suit land by further asking for the demolition of the superstructure existing thereupon-- Relief for possession claimed by plaintiff upon proper construction of the plaint and the frame of the suit was merely ancillary, incidental, consequential and dependent upon the primary relief of cancellation of the documents which was the basic and the foundational relief being sought--Where the main relief was time barred and the bar was not surmounted by the plaintiff the incidental and consequential relief had to go away along with it and the suit was liable to be dismissed on account of being time barred--Plaintiff had knowledge of the general power of attorney and all the transaction(s) of sale in favour of third party and the appellant made through the defendant/ attorney, but did not bring any legal action under S.39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, within the prescribed period of (3 years) limitation per Art. 91 of First schedule of the Limitation Act, 1908--Suit filed by the plaintiff was, thus, barred by time and was accordingly dismissed."
The Apex Court further observed that"-- "Law of limitation was founded upon public policy and State interest, and it was vital for an orderly and organized society and the people at large, who believed, in being governed by systemized law.
The obvious object of law of limitation was that if no time constraints and limits were prescribed for pursuing a cause of action and for seeking reliefs/remedies relating to such cause of action, and a person was allowed to sue for the redress of his grievance within an infinite and unlimited time period, it shall adversely affect the disciplined and structured judicial process and 'mechanism of the State, which was sine qua non for any State to perform its functions within the parameters of the Constitution and the rule of law.
Law of liniitation was considered prescriptive and preventive in nature and served as a major deterrent against the factors and the elements which could affect peace, tranquility and due order of the State and society. The law of limitation required that a person must approach the Court and take recourse of legal remedies with due diligence, without dilatoriness and negligence and within the time provided by the law; as against choosing his own time for the purpose of bringing forth a legal action at his own whim and desire. Because if that was so permitted to happen, it shall not only result in the misuse of the judicial , process of the State, but shall also cause exploitation of the legal system and the society as a whole. This was not permissible in a Stage which was governed by law and Constitution.
The object of law of limitation and the law itself, prescribing time constraints for each cause or case or for seeking any relief or remedy had been examined by the Courts in many a cases, and it had been held to be a valid piece of legislation, and law of the land. Law of limitation should be strictly construed and applied in its letter and spirit, and by no stretch of legal interpretation it could be held that such law was merely a technicality and that too of procedural nature. Rather from the mandate of S.3 of the Limitation Act, 1908 it was obligatory upon the Court to dismiss a cause/lis which was barred by time even though limitation had not been set out as a defence. This showed the imperative adherence to and the mandatory application of such law by the Courts.
Law providing for limitation for various causes/reliefs was not a matter of mere technicality but foundationally of the AW" itself"
10. Following the dictum of the Apex Court in my view law of I limitation is substantial piece of legislation which required that an aggrieved person must react and knock the door of the Court within u given time. If it is not done so it depicts that the effected party is not vigilant about his rights and our judicial system does not help indolent person/litigant. Execution of some documents and transaction came to the knowledge of the plaintiffs/respondents in 2007, however, they slept over it till 2012 when they filed a suit for cancellation of these documents with unexplained long delay. So in view of dictum of the Apex Court (supra), they deserved no leniency.
11. I may also take another aspect of law of limitation that it provides protection to a person who got property or other right through process of law and Court and after expiry of a certain period of limitation as provided under the law, he should be free to enjoy such right without any fear of further ligation. It may be added here that law of limitation is based upon the principles of nature as nature has provided time schedule for doing a particular act at a particular' time and after expiry of time, such act cannot be done. For example, after the expiry of childhood, one cannot claim it back in advance age of his life.
12. In view of above discussion, I hold that the learned Court below has committed material irregularity while passing the impugned order and did not exercise the jurisdiction vested with it and pass the order erroneously which cannot sustain. Resultant, this civil revision is accepted, impugned order is set aside, as a result thereof, while allowing application under Order VII Rule 11 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, plaint filed by the respondents/plaintiffs stands rejected, being barred by limitation.