Ch. Muhammad Masood Jahangir , J: The present petitioner instituted a suit in 2002 claiming therein that Mst.
Ayesha Bibi widow of Khawaj Bakhsh was occupancy tenant and after her death, the land in dispute could not revert to its non-muslim owner , but actually two sons of Khawaj Bakhsh, namely , Muhammad Hussain and Fazal Elahi, predecessors-in-interest of the petitioner being lineal descendants were entitled to inherit the land in dispute under section 59 of the Punjab Tenancy Act,1887 read with section 2-A of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat)
Application Act, 1962. Through the suit, petitioner also challenged the vires of mutation No.15 of 26th April, 1917 with the stance that abandonment or relinquishment of the property was not legal and ultimately prayed for restoration of occupancy rights of her forefathers besides its distribution to her being their descendant. The suit was resisted with the firm stance that petitioner was a fake lady having no nexus with Khawaj Bakhsh or Mst.
Ayesha Bibi. After full-fledged trial, not only the suit, but Appeal also failed and the unanimous decrees of the learned lower fora are the subject of instant petition.
2. Arguments of learned counsel for petitioner and respondents No.19(A to F) have been heard and record gone through, whereas despite issuance of process, none has appeared on behalf of remaining respondents, who are proceeded against ex parte.
3. The petitioner while posing herself to be daughter of Muhammad Hussain son of Khawaj Bakhsh as well as Mst.
Ayesha Bibi claimed right of inheritance in the disputed property , who failed to bring on record an iota of documentary evidence that Muhammad Hussain was son of aforenoted couple. She also could not prove her relationship with said Muhammad Hussain by bringing on record any document. The petitioner brought on record copy of death entry of one Adrees in order to prove that he was son of Muhammad Hussain, but she failed to produce on record any tangible evidence to prove that said Adrees was her real brother , so there is nothing on record to connect petitioner with Adree s, Muhammad Hussain, Khawaj Bakhsh or Mst. Ayesha Bibi. It was important to note that PW2 examined on behalf of petitioner in his cross-examination not only failed to prove the pedigree-table as pleaded and alleged by plaintif f, rather he also disclosed that Fazal Hussain was her grandfather , whereas plaintif f had the stance that Khawaj Bakhsh was his grandfather . The moment plaintif f failed to prove her relationship as disclosed in the plaint, the defence of the defendants proved that she was an imaginary and fake person having no nexus with Khawaj Bakhsh or Mst. Ayesha Bibi, the purported occupancy tenants. It was also a hard fact that Muhammad Hussain, the alleged father of petitioner died after the death of Khawaj Bakhsh and Mst.
Ayesha Bibi, but he neither instituted a suit to claim his share of inheritance in the legacy of afore-noted couple nor he challenged mutation No.15 dated 26.04.1917 to claim that the property of his parents had wrongly been abandoned. Moreover , Adrees the alleged brother of present petitioner died in 1995, who also did not claim any right of inheritance in the occupancy rights attributed to his grandparents through his father Muhammad Hussain. It is also an admitted fact that siblings of Adrees have also not agitated said rights by filing any independent lis till today . Learned counsel for the petitioner despite going into the entire record failed to point out any material, whereby his client proved her relationship with the occupancy holders, however , he emphasized that through oral evidence it was proved, but I am afraid that entries of the impugned mutation, which was attested 85 years prior to institution of the suit as well as its incorporation in the Record of Rights could not be doubted through oral evidence only, whereas strong presumption of truth is attached to these entries. As per available record, which otherwise was admitted by the PWs, the plaintif f as well as her alleged predecessor was out of possession since 1917, as such nothing remained hidden from Muha mmad Hussain and Fazal Elahi, the two sons of Mst. Ayesha, who were directly affected by impugned mutation, but they failed till their survival and thereby deprived their descendants lacked locus standi to dispute the subject mutation on any ground. Reliance in this respect is placed upon the judgments reported as Abdul Haq and another vs. Mst. Surrya Begum and others (2002 SCMR 1330 ), Ghulam Abbas and others vs. Mohammad Shafi through LRs and others (2016 SCMR 1403 ) and Nisar Fahimuddin and others vs. Charles Philips Mills and others (2017 SCMR 468 ).
4. The other backdrop of the case was that plaintif f also failed to explain the delay on her part to institute the suit.
Admittedly in her life the property was treated as evacuee and transferred to claimants by the Settlement/Rehabilitation Authorities, but no prompt action was initiated against said confirmation and rather suit was instituted after more than four decades of said allotment and that too without impleading the said Authority .
There is no second opinion that law of limitation, which is statute of repose, is designed to quit title and to bar, stale and water logged disputes, must be strictly complied with and the Courts cannot refrain from applying the said law.
After the prescribed period has elapsed, the door of justice is closed. The question of limitation cannot be considered a "technicality" simpliciter , which has got its own significance and would have substantial bearing on merits of the case, thus the law of limitation must be followed. In arriving at this view, this Court is fortified by the dicta laid down by the apex Court in the judgments reported as S. Sharif Ahmad Hashmi v. Chairman, Screening Committee Lahore and another (1978 SCMR 367), Muhammad Naseem Sipra v. Secretary , Government of Punjab (1989 SCMR 1 149) and Fazal Ilahi Siddiqi vs. Pakistan (PLD 1990 SC 692 ).
5. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I have no hesitation to hold that both the Courts below were quite justified to non-suit the petitioner on valid reasons after well appreciation of the evidence on record and concurrent findings are not open to any exception by this Court in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, the scope of which is narrower and restricted only to correct errors of l aw and facts, if are found to have been committed by the subordinate judiciary in the exercise of judicial function, but no such lapse is found herein. Resultantly , instant Civil Revision having no force is dismissed. No order as to costs.