MUHAMMAD AMEER BHA TTI, J.---This revision petition is directed against concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the learned Courts below , whereby respondent's suit for possession with mandatory injunction and removal of construction was decreed vide judgm ent and decree dated 16.11.2009 and appeal whereof preferred by the petitioners was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sadiqabad vide judgment and decree dated 18.08.2010.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent-plaintif f instituted aforesaid suit being owner of suit land measuring 02-Kanals 10-Marlas, situated in Khata No.112/107, Rectangle No.95/13, Kila No.6-A, Mouza Kacha Bhutta, Tehsil Sadiqabad, District Rahim Yar Khan with the averments that the petitioners took possession of the suit land 10/12 years prior to filing of the suit without consent of the plaintif f and since then they are illegal occupants of the suit land. The respondent brought this suit under Section 8 of the Specific Relief Act for ejectment of the illegal occupants from his owned suit land. The petitioners-defendants filed the written statement by raising Preliminary Objections qua maintainability of the suit in its present form; and specifically , suit being time barred controverting the facts with the assertion that they are in possession of the suit land since long and the respondent- plaintif f had no concern whatsoever with the same, thus the suit is liable to be dismissed. From divergent pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed as many as nine issues including relief . After recording evidence of the parties, suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 16. 1 1 . 2009.
3. The petitioners being dissatisfied from verdict of the learned trial Court approached the learned District Judge, Sadiqabad by way of filing appeal, which also met the same fate, as the learned Additional District Judge vide impugned judgment and decree dated 18.08.2010 dismissed petitioners' appeal.
4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the evidence available on record has not been examined by both the learned Courts below in its true perspective and the issues have not been decided in accordance therewith, therefore, the judgments impugned are not sustainable in the eye of law. Regarding question of limitation, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that it stood established from record that the suit was hopelessly time barred, as the petitioners were in possession of the suit land much before 12-years as required under Article 142 of the Limitation Act to bring the suit for possession under Section 8 of Specific Relief Act whereas both the learned Courts below have committed material illegality and irregularity while deciding this particular issue against the defendants-petitioners and in this respect, evidence available on record has not been taken into consideration resulting in miscarriage of justice.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contends that both the Courts below have neither committed any illegality nor misread or misconstrue the evidence, therefore, the revision petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed, as the petitioners have failed to point-out any piece of evidence which went un-noticed by the learned Courts below . So far as issue on the point of limitat ion is concerned, it is contended that both the Courts below after examining record of the case rightly observed that plaintif f's suit was within limitation and there is concurrent finding s of facts, therefore, this Court while sitting as revisional Court has no jurisdiction to upset the concurrent findin gs of facts if the same are based on record and unless any material illegality or irregularity is pointed-out, the power given under section 115, C.P.C. cannot be exercised. Adds that the respondent-plaintif f had proved his case beyond any shadow of doubt and for this reason the learned Courts below have decided the matter in his favour , therefore, the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are sustainable in the eye of law and no interference is warranted by this Court.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined record of the case.
7. The question of limitation is of much importance to be dealt with as laid down by the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in a case reported in Dr. Muhammad Javaid Shah v. Syed Rashid Arshad and others (PLD 2015 Supreme Court 212). In this landmark judgment, the apex Court held that the question of limitation entails significance and should be determined before indulging into other merits or facts of the case. It is expedient to reproduce the relevant portion of the verdict, which is as under:- "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 use 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 limitation 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 may 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 technica lity 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 a 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 the courts. The said law is considered prescriptive and preventive in 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 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 so 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."
Therefore, in view of importance of question of limitation, elaborated in the manner in cited judgment, I deem it appropriate to take the issue of limitation first. It is not the case of either party that limitation as provided under Article 142 of the Limitation Act, 1908 is applicable to the facts and circumstan ces of this case and 12-years limitation for filing the suit for recovering possession of any illegal occupant is provided under the law, Whereas circumstances explained in coming paras establish that Article 144 of the Limitation Act is applicable, however it remains the same. Keeping in view the maximum period of 12 years, I have examined the pleadings as well as evidence available on record with able assistance of learned counsel for the parties. It is nowhere mentioned in the plaint by the respondent-plaintif f that as to when the defendants-petitioners illegally took possession of the suit land. It was the bounden duty of the respondent/plaintif f to give clear , full and definite particulars. No date, month or year, as to when he took over possessio n of the land and dispossessed therefrom within 12-years of filing of the suit, were to be averred in the plaint which was the most essential factor to determine the question of limitation. He just averred in the plaint that 10-12 years back the possession was taken by the defendants-petitioners. This assertion is not sufficient to resolve the question of limitation. It was the paramount duty of the respondent-plaintif f to insert or disclose the particulars of date, month and year in specific manner to show that the defendants- petitioners took over possession of the suit land on such point of time and that too against his wishes. Besides this deficiency , it is found by scanning the evidence led by the respondent-plaintif f as well as defendants-petitioners that the suit land prior to petitioners' possession was in control of one Khawand Bakhsh Nai, where-after another person called as Lohaar remained in possession of land in question. It is also admitted by the plaintif f in his cross- examination while appearing as PW-1 that both those persons retained possession without his consent rather they had forcefully occupied the land. He further admitted that the defendants-petitioners had taken possession of the suit land after Lohaar and he never filed any suit nor launched any litigation against their possession. On the other hand, case of the defendants-petitioners is that they purchased the suit land from one Lohaar namely Sher Muhammad Lohaar and before that, as per stance of the petitioners one Khawand Bakhsh was residing at the same place. It is also alleged by the defendants-petitioners in their examination-in-chief, which remained un- rebutted, that during Ishtimaal this land was included in plaintif f's ownership and before that he never owned the same and for the last more than 50 years this piece of land was being used as residence by the people of the locality as is evident from record of rights available on record where it is mentioned as 'ghair mumkin abadi ' and this portion of evidence remained uncros sed by the respondent-plaintif f. Hence, it is established that the land-in- dispute was in possession of the petitioner or before him other persons were occupying the same and during consolidation process and on account of Wandas prepared by Consolidation hierarchy , this piece of land was included in the ownership of the respondent. For this reason, he failed to point-out any date of taking possession by the petitioner .
8. It is also established from record that at the time of construction of pacca houses, the respondent-plaintif f never raised any voice nor did they file any suit rather it was admitted that no suit had been instituted either against Tarkhans or against the petitioners instead the respondent/ plaintif f himself allowed the petitioners to use the land against his cause/rights, which adversely effected his rights. It is settled law that a person is estopped by his own conduct if he knowingly allowed any person to cause damage to his rights leading to inference that such happening was in true direction. It was incumbent upon the respondent-plaintif f to raise objection thereto failing which he surrendered/waived his right to object and at latter stage he is estopped from raising such objection.
In the present case, if all evidence produced by both the parties is kept in juxtaposition, the story alleged by the respondent-plaintif f would become immaterial, as from the date of wandas prepared during consolidation admittedly held in the year 1980, he was cognizant of the fact that the land-in-question was in possession of illegal occupants and the petitioners purchased it from third hand and thereafter they re-constructed houses but at all these stages, as mentioned and stated above, the respondent-plaintif f never objected and remained in deep slumber , therefore, he is estopped to claim this property at this belated stage, as the rights have accrued in favour of alleged illegal occupants to use this land, as the law helps vigilant not indolent. Even otherwise respondent/ plaintif f never remained in possession of suit land and before consolidation he had no land in the Khata rather became co-owner after consolidation. In the present circumstances it is held that Article 144 of Limitation Act would attract instead of Article 142, which also provides 12-years limitation for filing suit and the respondent failed to file the suit within said period. Even otherwise, after consolidation, the respondent could claim the possession of the suit property from the Consolidation Officer, as Section 11 of the Punjab Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1936 empowered said Of ficer to deliver possession.
9. There is also no substance in the argument of learned counsel for the respondent-plaintif f that there was no need to join the other co-owners as party in the suit as the suit was against the illegal occupant; whereas it is settled law that suit for possession could only be filed against the illegal occupant of joint khata by all the co-owners or by one but joining other co-owners as defendants because decree would be for join possession and not for plaintif f exclusively . This deficiency is also floating on the surface of the record, which was suf ficient for rejection of plaint.
10. The nutshell of above discussion is that suit'of the respondent-plaintif f was hopelessly time barred besides he was also estopped from filing this suit on account of his lethargic act and admittedly the property was never remained in his possession before and after process of consolidation. Respon dent-plaintif f during process of consolidation was shown co-owner in the Khata but he filed the suit showing himself as exclusive owner of this portion of land. Besides that he never come forward to claim the possession of the property from any occupant except the petitioner who proved his possession on the property more than twelve years at that time and at such belated stage he tried to eject the petition ers-defendants by bringing the present lis; even before that other persons remained occupants of this land. If the contention of the respondent-plaintif f is accepted that he had the knowledge about possession of Khawand Bakhsh and Lohaar , the illegal occupants, then he with his own consent/option himself provided the opportunity to use his property by the illegal occupants. In such situation, the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the cited case has held that if any person knowingly does not come forward for ejectment of the illegal occupant within the limitation, he could not succeed beyond limitation and would not be in position to cross the legal estoppel. In this view of the matter , I am of the view that plaintif f's suit was suffered legal impediment of limitation and estoppel being hopelessly barred by time as he intentionally allowed the petitioners- defendants to use his property for a reasonable period exceeding 12-years, with this understanding as he was owner therefore, at this stage, suit cannot be allowed to be decreed.
11. For what has been discussed above, It is held that both the learned Court below have committed material illegality and irregularity while granting decree hence un-sustainable in the eye of law thus this revision petition is allowed . Resultantly , the judgments and decrees passed by both the learned Courts below are hereby set-aside being contrary to the ratio laid down by the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case referred ibid with the result that suit of the respondent stands dismissed. No order as to costs.