Precisely , the petitioner and respondents No.13 to 17 instituted a suit for declaration with regards to the suit property , against the respondents-defend ants No.1 to 12 contending therein that they are owners in possession of 1/4th share from 1/2 share of disputed property; the suit was duly contested by the respondents No.1 to 3 and 10 as well as by respondents No.11 and 12. During pendency of suit, the respondents No.1 to 4 and defendant No.10 filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for rejection of plaint; the said application was resisted by the present petitioner and other plaintif fs. The learned trial Court vide order dated 21.05.2018 dismissed the said application. The respondents No.1 and 2 being aggrieved of the said order filed a revision petition and the learned Revisional Court vide impugned order dated 18.05.2019 accepted the revision petition and set aside the order dated 21.05.2018 passed by the learned trial Court, consequent whereof while accepting the application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the CPC, rejected the plaint of suit instituted by the petitioner and respondents No.13 to 17; hence, the instant constitutional petition.
2. Heard.
3. It is a settled principle of law that question of law even if not taken or raised by the party , could be considered by the Courts even at appellate and revisional stage. In Dr. Muhammad Javaid Shafi v. Syed Rashid Arshad and others (PLD 2015 Supreme Court 212) , it was invariably held by the August Court of the country that:- From the various dicta/ pronouncements of the superior court, it can be deduced without any fear of contradiction that such law is founded upon public policy and State interest. This law is vital for an orderly and organized society and the people at large, who believe in being governed by systemized law. The obvious object of the law is that if no time constraints and limits are prescribed for pursuing a cause of action and for seeking reliefs/remedies relating to such cause of action, and a person is allowed to sue for the redressal 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 is sine qua non for any State to perform its functions within the parameters of the Constitution and the rule of law. The object of the law of limitat ion and the law itself, prescribing time constraints for each cause or case or for seeking any relief or remedy has been examined by the courts in many a cases, and it has been held to be a valid piece of legislation, and law of the land. It is THE LAW" which should be strictly construed and applied in its letter and spirit; and by no stretch of legal interpretation it can be held that such law (i.e. limitation law) is merely a technicality and that too of procedural in nature. Rather from the mandate of section 3 of the Limitation Act, it is obligatory upon the court to dismiss the cause/lis which is barred by time even though limitation has not been set out as a defence. And this shows the imperative adherence to and the mandatory application of such law by nature and is held to mean and serve as a major deterrent against the factors and the elements which would affect peace, tranquility and due order of the State and society . The law of limitation requires that a person must approach the Court and take recourse to 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 is 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 is not permissible in a State which is governed by law and Constitution. And it may be relevant to mention here that the law providing for limitation for various causes/reliefs is not a matter of mere technicality but foundationally of the "LAW" itself. ....................................'
In regard of above said view, this Court is further fortified by a judgment reported as United Bank Limited and others v . Noor Un-Nisa and others (2015 SCMR 380 ), wherein it was held:- Under section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1908, it is the bounden duty of every Court of law to take notice of the question of limitation even if not raised in defence by the other contesting party(s).'
Earlier to the above said celebrated judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan dealt with the same proposition in Lahore Development Authority v. Mst. Sharifan Bibi and another (PLD 2010 Supreme Court 705) and Sardar Anwar Ali Khan and 10 others v . Sardar Baqir Ali through Legal Heirs and 4 others (1992 SCMR 2435 ).
4. When on the touchstone of the above ratio, the present case is weighed, it appears that auction was accepted in favour of Barkat Ali deceased who was literate and ex-army person, who died in the year 1976 and father of the present petitioner and other plaintif fs namely Ghulam Rasool remained alive for about 43 years after demise of Barkat Ali, but during his life time he never ever agitated the matter before any forum. Had he paid the amount of his share, he would have assailed the matter of allotment in favour of Barkat Ali, during his life time or after demise of Barkat Ali, but he kept mum and after his (Ghulam Rasool' s) death, the plaintif fs kept quiet for a considerable period and after 16 years of death of their father/predecessor instituted the suit in hand, which has rightly been adjudicated to be barred by law of limita tion while appreciating the ratio of judgments referred in the impugned order dated 18.05.2019 passed by the learned appellate Court; as such, the learned appellate Court while considering law on the subject and facts of the case has rightly concluded that the suit of the petitioner(s)/plaintif fs was badly barred by limitation. There appears no jurisdictional defect or legal infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court in exercise of extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction. The findings recorded by the learned appellate Court are upheld and maintained.
5. Pursuant to above the learned appellate Court has evaluated record in true perspective and has reached to a just conclusion. Resultantly , while placing reliance on the judgments supra , the constitutional petition in hand being devoid of any force and substance stands dismissed in limine .