ROZI KHAN BARRECH, J.----This Civil Revision Petition in terms of section 115 of The Code of Civil Procedur e (V of 1908) (hereinafter referred as ("C.P.C.") arises out of judgment and decree &tea 30.05.2017 (hereinafter "the impugned Judgment" ) passed by learned Majlis-e-Shoora, Kalat (hereinafter "the appellate court") whereby the appeal filed by the respondents was accepted and the judgment and decree dated 22.10.2016 (hereinafter "the Judgment" ) passed by learned Qazi Sohrab (hereinafter "the trial court" ) was set aside.
2. Epitomized facts necessary for adjudic ation of the instant petition are that the respondents/plaintif f filed a suit for declaration, specific performance of the agreement dated 24.03.2009 before the learned trial Court against the petitioners/defendants with the averments that the respondents/plaintif fs provide a piece of land measuring 17270 sqft under Khewat Khatooni No.1, Khasra No.11, Tehsil Surab adjacent to national Highway for construction of Rest House with commitment with that nominee of respondents/plaintif fs will be provided job/service of class-IV by the petitioners/defendants and in this regard an agreement executed between the parties. The plaintif fs/respondents time and again remanded for provision of job/services to the petitioner/defendant No.2 and all other concern authorities but they did not pay any heed towards Weir request nor took any notice of the agreement deed signed between the parties. Notice was served upon petitioners/defendants despite that none appeared, and the learned trial Court initiated ex-parte order against them and after that the learned trial Court framed the following issues:- {{URDU TEXT}}
3. After framing issues, the plaintif fs/respondents produced their respective evidence.
4. After hearing arguments of learned counsel for the plaintif fs/respondents, the suit of the plaintif fs/petitioners was dismissed by the learned trial Court on 22.10.2016.
5. Being aggrieved from the judgment and decree dated 22.10.2016, the respondents/plaintif fs filed an appeal before the learned appellate Court (Majlis-e-Shoora, Kalat).
6. After hearing arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, the appellate court accepted the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree dated 22.10.2016 passed by the learned trial Court and decree the suit of the plaintif fs/respondents on 30.05.2017, whereafter , the petitioners/defendants filed the instant revision petition,
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as respondents at considerable length and also perused the record with their able assistance.
8. The first limb of the matter is that whether the suit filed by the plaintif fs/respondents was barred by limitation or else. The plaintif fs/respondents filed the suit for specific performance of the agreement dated 24.03.2009 by way of filing the suit in the year 2015 that too after the lapse of six (06) years and despi te that the plaintif fs/respondents stated in their plaint that in the year 2009 he sent a notice to the petitioners/defendants to abide the agreement, but they did not feel any heeds towards the request nor take any notice of the agree ment deed signed between the parties, and despite that the plaintif fs/resp ondents were silent for six years and after six years they, filed the instant suit. Limitation to file a suit for specific performance of agreement under section 113 of Limitation Act is three (03) years, in the instant case the plaintif fs/respondents filed the suit in the year 2015 which was shared by time. It has time and again been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that an aggrieved person has to pursue his legal remedy with diligence and if the suit is filed beyond the period of limitation, each day's delay is to be explained. In the instant case no explanation whatsoever was given in this respect.
9. Section 3 of the Act provides that the institution of the suit after the limitation period shall be subject to the provisions of the Act irrespective of the fact that the limitation has not been pleaded as a defense. It is obligatory on the Court to decide the question of limita tion first and only thereafter proceed to decide the matter on merits. The Court is bound to address the question of limitation irrespective of the fact that whether it was agitated or not. A suit barred by time should be dismissed even if nobody has pointed out such lacuna if the proceedings brought before the Court are barred by time the Court cannot assume jurisdiction, it shall have no jurisdiction in the matter unless the delay is condoned first for disposal of the suit on merits alone is not sufficien t to be presumed that the delay was condoned. The suit/plaint is to be rejected forthwith even without resorting to the evidence or framing of any issues under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. if it appears from the plaint that the suit is barred by limitation. Reliance placed on the reported judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hakim Muhammad Buta and another v. Habib Ahmed and others PLD 1985 SC 153 .
10. The claim of the respondents/plainti ffs are that they provided a piece of land measuring 17270 sqft under Khewat Khatooni No.1, Khasra No.11, Tehsil Surab adjacent to national Highway for construction of Rest House with the commitment that nominee of respondents/plaintif fs will be provided job/service of class-IV by the petitioners/defendants and in this regard an agreement executed between the parties which was duly signed by the XEN Provincial B&R District Kalat.
11. The agreement was not according to law because no post can be filled on the recommendation of the private persons. Such agreement has no legal sanctity; it is illegal and against the public policy . According to the said agreement, it means that on the basis of the referred agreement no one has a right to be appointed except on the recommendation of the donor of the land. Such exercise if allowed amounts to a violation of Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, which A reads as under:- "25. Equality of citizens. (1) All citizens are equal before law and are entitled to equal protection of law .
(2) There shall be no discrimination on the basis of sex.
(3) Nothing in this Article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the protection of women and children.
12. If the alleged agreement is abided the landless citizen would be deprived of expectation for appointment as Class-IV employee. The agreement of donated land in consideration of employment is tantamount to sale the public of fice, which is completely illegal. Section 23 of the Contract Act, 1872 is applicable is reproduced as under:- "23. What consideration and objects are lawful and what not?
The considerate or object of an agreement is lawful, unless it is forbidden by law; or , Is of such a nature that, if permitted, it would defeat the provisions of any law; or Involves or implies injury to the person or property of another; or In each of these cases, the consideration or object of an agreement is said to be unlawful. Every agreement of which the object or consideration is unlawful is void".
In view of the above discussion, the plaintif fs/respondents claim specific performance of the void agreement and the learned appellate court has not considered this aspect of the matter while pass ing the impugned judgment and has committed gross illegality and irregu larity, as such, the impugned judgmen t and decree dated 30.05.2017 passed by learned Majlis-e-Shoora, Kalat, is hereby set aside, the revision petition filed by the petitioners is accepted and the judgment and decree dated 22.10.2016 passed by learned Qazi Sohrab is hereby upheld.