1. ' Through this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged impugned orders dated 23.06.2015 and 03.12.2016, respectively, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Pirmahal, as well as, learned Additional District Judge, Pirmahal, District Toba Tek Singh.
2. 2.Brief facts, of the case are that the petitioner instituted a suit for declaration against the respondents to the effect that he is legal heir of deceased Saydi Ahmad Shah from the suit property. The other Respondents No, 1 to 19 are also co-sharer in the suit property, but depriving the petitioner, Mutations No, 2102, dated 12.10.1994, Mutation No, 2103, dated 21.10.1994, Mutation No, 2200, dated 27.08.1995 and Mutation No, 2204, dated 14.09.1995, were sanctioned in favour of the respondents in connivance with the revenue authorities, which are illegal, unlawful and without notice to the petitioner, only to usurp his legal share from the estate of Saydi Ahmad Shah (deceased). It is further mentioned in the petition that another suit titled "Syed Dur Hussain Shah vs. Afsheen Athar, etc." was instituted, wherein mutations No, 5086, dated 09.10.2009, Mutation No, 5087, dated 09.10,2009 and Mutation No, 5228, dated 24.04.2010, have been challenged. Written statements in both the suits were filed, separately. The learned trial Court consolidated both the suits and consolidated issues were framed on30.11.2011.
3. 3.On 27.11.2014, Respondents No, 1 to 5/Defendants No, 1 to 5 in the suit, moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, in the suit titled "Syed Abid Ali Shah vs. Afsheen Athar, etc.", wherein the petitioner/plaintiff filed reply thereto. The learned trial Court, after having heard the arguments from both the sides on the -above-mentioned application, proceeded to hold that since the matter in dispute between the parties pertained to limitation; therefore, treated Issue No, 4 (Whether suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation? OPD/OPA" as preliminary issue, directing the parties to adduce their evidence, vide order dated .23.06.2015.
4. 4.The order passed by the learned trial Court on 23.06.2015, was challenged by the present petitioner before the learned revisional Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 03.12.2016.
5. Hence, this writ petition.
6. 5.The crux of the arguments of the petitioner is that as already Issue No, 4 has been sketched out, which relates to limitation and the said issue is a mixed question of law and facts, which should not be decided as preliminary issue and the same causes delay in the trial of suit. He further stressed that if all these issues are decided conjointly then the litigation could be culminated once for all between the parties.
7. 6.In rebuttal, learned counsel representing Respondents No 1 to 5, states that in an earlier round of litigation between the parties, on the same subject matter, the then learned Additional District Judge, vide his order dated 12.08.2014, has already decided the matter, which attained finality. Now the second round of suit is based on mala fide intent, therefore, the same is not liable to be proceed able, hence, preliminary issue of limitation is sufficient to unearth the real dispute.
8. 7.I have anxiously considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record annexed therewith.
9. 8.The learned revisional Court has also endorsed the view of learned trial Court, through which while deciding application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, a preliminary issue was framed on the ground of limitation. I have examined the law on the subject and found that Order XIV Rule 2 CPC relates to the controversy. The same is reproduced below: "Issues of law and of fact. --Where issues both for law and of fact arise in the same suit, and the Court is of opinion that the case or any part thereof may be disposed of on, the issues, of law only, it shall try those issues first, and for that purpose may, if it thinks fit, postpone the settlement of the, issues of fact until after the issues of law have been determined".
10. The purpose of framing of issues is to concise the dispute in a questionnaire form, so as to enable the parties to converge upon the real dispute and later on the Court is also in a position to decide the matter according to the real controversy. The question of limitation, no doubt, in some instances is a mixed question of law and fact, but with peculiar facts and circumstances. In the instant case, when there is no denial that in the earlier round of litigation between the parties, it was adjudicated by the appellate Court vide his order dated 12.08.2014 that the petitioner and his brother got his due share of inheritance from the legacy of deceased predecessor. In this way, they have further enjoyed with their gift Mutation No, 1533 and 1534, according to their own whims. Now from the same legacy, they again started the litigation against other legal heirs of the predecessor, which is 'unwarranted and a futile exercise, as they did not file any appeal or revision against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, dated 12.08.2014. In view of the above mentioned circumstances, the adjudication on the same subject excludes the question of limitation from the ambit of question of fact and falls within the purview of pure question of law, on the pretext of provisions of Order XIV Rule 2 CPC.
11. 9.There is also no denial with the fact that the impugned gift mutations were sanctioned on 12.10.1994, 21.10.1994, 27.08.1995 and 14.09.1995 and through this suit, the petitioner seeks the correction of record and challenged the validity of mutations. The present suit was filed in the year, 2015, after more than 20-years of sanctioning of gift mutation. The Court is empowered for determination of litigation through any adopted course or by curtailing the process as required by law. It is also a requirement of law when the Court deems that on the basis of the issue of limitation, a fact which is well within the knowledge of the petitioner, then it is in the fitness of things to treat the issue of limitation as issue of law, and can further assuming it as preliminary issue. The provision of Rule 2 of Order XIV CPC is mandatory in nature and the Court has all prerogatives to treat any issue as a preliminary issue. In this regard, the Court has to convince that upon findings of this issue the whole case can be decided. As an issue of law which go to the root of whole case and capable of having decided without any other evidence, the Court should decide the same issue first.
12. 10.Reverting again to the instant case, the Court is convinced .that the allegations contained in the application regarding the knowledge of the petitioner since 20-years back, which is apparently directly affect the case, hence, the issue of limitation is not to be treated as a mixed question of law and fact, but purely can be treated as a question of law, which is so rightly determined and treated as preliminary issue. It is also the mandate of the trial Court to ascertain whether the whole evidence is required on any of the issue, which covers the whole dispute or can be treated any issue as a particular preliminary issue. In this way, the trial Court has rightly observed that in the prevailing circumstances of the case when the knowledge of the plaintiff regarding the impugned mutations is already adjudicated. The knowledge of the impugned mutations since 20-years back is based V upon judicial verdict, then there is no need to further proceed in the matter, except by treating the issue of limitation as preliminary issue.
13. 11.From the above discussion, I find no interference through constitutional jurisdiction of this Court to upset or disturb the findings advanced by the trial Court as well as revisional Court. Hence, this petition having no force and the same is dismissed.
14. ' There is no order as to costs.