Precisely , petitioners' predecessor-in-interest namely Kabir Muhammad instituted a suit for declaration with regards to the suit land wherein he challenged certain mutations as well as order of Deputy Commissioner , Muzafargarh dated 8.9.1983. The respondents/defendants while appearing before the learned trial Court contested the suit and prayed for dismissal of the same. Out of the divergent pleadings of the parties, issues were framed and evidence of the parties was invited, which was adduced in pro and contra. The learned trial Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 15.09.2009 dismissed suit of the petitioners/plaintif fs, which decree was agitated by preferring an appeal, but the same was also dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 26.07.201 1, which has given rise to the instant civil revision.
2. Heard.
3. Admittedly , the petitioners predecessor Kabir Muhammad remained in litigation with the respondents and continuously associated the proceedings before the revenue hierarchy and the Fard Badr was declared null and void on 28.09.1983 and the same fact was in the knowledge of the Kabir Muhamma d from the day one, but he kept mum and instituted the suit in the year 1995, after about 12 years of passing of the said order , which otherwise had to be challenged within one year. If for the sake of arguments it is admitted that the order was illegal and void, even then the name would have been called into question within time prescribed under law; reliance is placed on Ghulam Hussain Ramzan Ali v. Collecto r of Customs (Preventive), Karachi (2015. PTD 107 Supreme Court of Pakistan & (2014 SCMR 1594 ) and Gen, (R.) Pervez Musharraf v. Nadeem Ahmad (Advocate) and another (PLD 2014 Supreme Court 585).
4. Pursuant to the above, when it is found that the suit was barred by limitation, there is no need to discuss further merits of the case and it is observed that while deciding issue of limitation, the learned Court below have construed law on the subject in a judiciou s and apt manner and have no committe d any illegality and irregularity , , rather vested jurisdiction has been exercised legally .
5. For the foregoing reasons, the civil revision in hand being devoid of any force and substance stands dismissed.
No order as to the costs