MUHAMMAD SAJID MEHMOOD SETHI, J.---Through instant revision petition, petitioners have assailed judgments and decrees dated 27.11.2013 and 01.04.2013, passed by learned Additional District Judge and Civil Judge 1st Class, Jampur , respectively , whereby suit filed by respondents was decreed concurrently .
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondents instituted a suit for declaration and cancellation of mutations with correction of revenue record and restoration of possession, which was contested by petitioners by filing written statement. Learned trial Court, after framing of issues, recording evidence and hearing arguments, proceeded to decree the suit vide judgment and decree dated 01.04.2013. Feeling aggrieved , petitioners filed appeal before learned lower Appellate Court, which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 27.11.2013. Hence, instant revision petition.
3. Learned counsel for petitioners submit that respondents challenged mutation dated 12.12.1913' by filing suit in 2006 i.e. after lapse of 93-years, which is badly barred by limitation. They submit that Mst. Ganhwar , whose inheritance has been claimed by respondents, remained alive for a number of years after attestation of above mutation and she did not opt to challenge the same during her lifetime, therefore, respondents had no locus standi to file the suit. They argue that petitioners were not afforded sufficient opportunity to produce evidence in rebuttal, thus, impugned judgments and decrees, being against principles of justice, are not sustainable. They argue that the scope and object of Law of Limitation demands that there should be an end of litigation. He adds that respondents have not tendered any justification to overlook the matter for a period of 93-years, which casts doubt on their bona fides. He maintains that even otherwise, principle of laches is also attracted, thus, suit was not maintainable.
Reliance has been placed upon Atta Muhammad v. Maula Bakhsh and others (2007 SCMR 1446 ), Muhammad Rustam and another v. Mst. Makhan Jan and others (2013 SCMR 299) and Noor Din and another v.
Additional District Judge, Lahore and others (2014 SCMR 513 ).
4. Conversely , learned counsel for respondents have supported the impugned judgments and decrees. They have referred to Ghulam Ali and 2 others v. Mst.Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi (PLD 1990 Supreme Court 1), Arshad Khan v. Mst. Resham Jan and others 2005 SCMR 1859 ), Mahmood Shah v. Syed Khalid Hussain Shah and others (2015 SCMR 869), Mst. Shehla Naz through Special Attor ney v. Jawaid and 2 others (2010 CLC 1086 ) and Bashir Ahmad Khan and others v . Ghulam Sadar-ud-Din Khan and others (2012 CLC 699 ).
5. Arguments heard. Available record perused.
6. Brief background of the case is that suit property was originally owned by one Choor who died in 1913, leaving behind three sons (Dassa, Musa and Hayat) and one daughter (Mst. Gahnwar). Respondents alleged that inheritance mutation No.449 dated 12.12.1913 was attested while excluding their predecessor i.e. Mst. Gahnwar . It is further claimed that later on, Musa died and allegedly share from his inheritance (mutation No.419 dated 02.01.1931) was not transferred in the name of Mst. Gahnwar , his sister . The suit property remained subject of multiple transfers through various mutations till 1995. However , the suit was instituted by respondents in 2006. As per statement of PW-1, Mst. Gahnwar died in 1987-88, which means that she remained alive for more than 25- years after attestation of first mutation of inheritance dated 12.12.1913 but she did not initiate any legal proceedings to seek her inherited estate.
Now, question before this Court is whether such a long lapse and silence to safeguard one's legal rights can be over sighted in view of celebrated principle of law that no limitation runs in inheritance matters, especially when a number of mutations took place subsequent to the mutation of inheritance?
7. The averments of the plaint as well as evidence led by respondents do not reflect any sound reason whatsoever to indicate as to why Mst. Gahnwar did not challenge the mutations,- depriving her from in inheritance, despite being alive for decades. The golden maxim that "law aids the vigilant and not the indolent " provides that helpful hand could not be extended to a litigant having gone into deep slumber on B having become forgetful of his /her rights. Those who sleep over their rights, stand estopped from getting their enforcement though their right continues. The conduct and attitude of respondents brings doctrine of laches into play and they have lost enforcement of their right due to the lapse of 93-years, especially when a number of mutations took place ever since. Reference can be made to Aftab Iqbal Khan Khichi and another v. Messrs United Distributers Pakistan Ltd. Karachi (1999 SCMR 1326 ), Nazakat Ali v. WAPDA through Manager and others (2004 SCM14, 145), S.M.
Afzal ul Rehman v. Federation of Pakistan and others (2005 SCMR 1322 ), Atta Muhammad's case (supra) and Lahore Development Authority v . Mst. Sharifan Bibi and another (PLD 2010 Supreme Court 705).
8. Limitation could be ignored on the basis that matter was with regard to inherita nce. Law of Limitation has been designed to impose a restriction on legal conflicts/ actions. The main and fundamental aim of the law of limitation is to protect the lengthy process of penalizing a person indirectly without doing any offence. It requires that persons must come to Court and take recourse to legal remedies with due diligence. Even in inheritance cases, the Hon'ble superior Courts applied the Law C of Limitation and dismissed the suits seeking declaration against mutations of transfer/inheritance mutations after lapse of very long time, especially when suit is filed by legal heirs of the right- holder after his/her death and a number of transactions were made creating third party rights. Reference can be made to Ahmad Din v. Muhammad Shafi and others (PLD 1971 SC 762), Luqman and others v. Gul Muhammad (1984 SCMR 63), Mst. Phaphan through L.Rs. v. Muham mad Bakhsh and others (2005 SCMR 1278 ), Muhammad Rustam and another v. Mst. Makhan Jan and others (2013 SCMR 299), Shero v.
Muhammad Ramzan and 2 others (2006 YLR 2632 ), Nasrullah Khan and 4 others v. Nazir Begum and others (2012 YLR 2613 ), Shah Jahan v. Mst. Sadu Bibi (2016, YLR Note 6), Bagh Ali v. Ahmad Yar and others (2016 CLC Note 76), Atta Muhammad through L. Rs. and others v. Muhammad Khan and others (2018 MLD 1524 ) and Kausar Ali and another v . Javed Anjum and 6 others (2018 CLC 1930 ).
9. In view of the above, instant revision petition is allowed and the impugned judgments and decrees are set-aside, resultantly respondents' suit stand dismissed.