SHAHID BILAL HASSAN, J. Precisely, the petitioner being plaintiff instituted a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 07.05.1991 along with permanent injunction regarding the suit property against the respondents/defendants, which was duly contested by the respondent No.3/defendant while submitting written statement. The respondent No.3 also instituted a suit for declaration, recovery of compensation and possession against the petitioner and others. Both the suits were consolidated and out of the divergent pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed consolidated issues. Evidence of the parties in pro and contra was recorded. On conclusion of trial, the learned trial Court vide impugned consolidated judgment and decree dated 24.06.2022 dismissed both the suits. The petitioner and respondent No.3, being aggrieved and dissatisfied, preferred separate appeals against the said consolidated judgment and decree. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 13.05.2023; hence, the instant revision petition.
2. Heard.
3. It is a settled law that limitation is not a mere technicality or a hyper technicality rather once limitation expires, a right accrues in favour of the other side by operation of law which cannot lightly be taken away as has been held in Asad Ali and 9 others v. The Bank of Punjab and others (PLD 2020 Supreme Court 736). Moreover, it is a settled principle of law that question of law even if not taken or raised by the opposite party, could be considered by the Courts even at appellate and revisional stage. In Dr. Muhammad Javaid Shall 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 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 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 this regard, 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 Apex Court of the country dealt with the same proposition in Almas Ahmad Fiaz v. Secretary Government of Punjab and others (2006 SCMR 783), 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. Now, when on the touchstone of the above ratio, the present case is weighed, it appears that the alleged agreement to sell was reached at between the parties on 07.05.1991 (Ex.P1), even prior to deriving of ownership by Altaf Hussain as he became owner in possession of the suit property on 11.06.1991, but the suit was instituted on 08.07.2009, after about 18 years, which means the suit of the petitioner was barred by limitation because Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1908 provides three years for filing such suit from the date fixed for the performance or if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused; reliance is placed on judgments reported as Haji Abdul Karim and others v. Florida Builders (Pvt.) Limited (PLD 2012 Supreme Court 247) and Atta Muhammad v. Maula Bakhsh and others (2007 SCMR 1446).
5. In addition to the above, the entire property allotted to Mst. Shakoori Begum by the Provincial, Government through registered deed No.938/1 dated 06.06.1991 under Gujranwala Cantt. Scheme was further transferred by her to respondent No.2 along with Ghulam Abbas, Ameer Ali, Ghulam Murtaza sons of Dost Muhammad' on the basis of registered sale deed No.978/1 dated 11.06.1991, which was pre-empted. by Muhammad Iqbal and the said suit was decreed in his favour on 07.02.1994; meaning thereby when the alleged agreement to sell Ex.P1 was entered into, the property in dispute was not in ownership of respondent No.2-Altaf Hussain. As such, the learned Courts below while considering law on the subject and facts of the case have rightly concluded that the suit of the petitioner/plaintiff was badly barred by limitation. In such scenario, if the suit is found to be barred by limitation, then plaint has to be rejected forthwith without resorting to the evidence or framing of any issue. Reliance is placed on Hakim Muhammad Buta and another v.
Habib Ahmed and others (PLD 1985 SC 153); however, in the instant case, the learned Courts below have minutely dilated upon the evidence of the parties and have also rightly non-suited the petitioner on merits as well. There appears no legal infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgments and decrees warranting interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 115, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The findings recorded by the learned Courts below are upheld and maintained.
6. Pursuant to above, both the learned Courts have evaluated evidence in true perspective and have reached to a just conclusion, concurrently; as such the concurrent findings, on facts, cannot be disturbed when the same do not suffer from any misreading and non-reading of evidence, howsoever erroneous, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction; reliance is placed on Muhammad Farid Khan v. Muhammad Ibrahim and others (2017 SCMR 679), Mst. Zaitoon Begum v. Nazar Hussain and another (2014 SCMR 1469), Cantonment Board through Executive Officer, Cantt. Board Rawalpindi v. Ikhlaq Ahmed and others (2014 SCMR 161), Muhammad Sarwar and others v.
Hashmal Khan and others (PLD 2022 Supreme Court 13) and Mst. Zarsheda v. Nobat Khan (PLD 2022 Supreme Court 21), wherein it has been held:- 'There is a difference between the misreading, non-reading and misappreciation of the evidence therefore, the scope of the appellate and revisional jurisdiction must "or be confused and care must be taken for interference in revisional jurisdiction only in the cases in which the order passed or a judgment rendered by a subordinate Court is found perverse or suffering from a jurisdictional error or the defect of misreading or non-reading of evidence and conclusion drawn is contrary to law.'
Further in judgment reported as Salamat Ali and others v. Muhammad Din and others (PLD 2022 SC 353), it has invariably been held that:- 'Needless to mention that a revisional Court cannot upset a finding of fact of the Court(s) below unless that finding is the result of misreading, ion-reading, or perverse or absurd appraisal of some material evidence. The revisional Court cannot substitute the finding of the Court(s) below with its own merely for the reason that it finds its own finding more plausible than that of the Court(s) below.'
However, in the present case, no such occasion has arisen showing any jurisdictional error or defect rather the findings recorded by the learned Courts below are upto the dexterity after minute discussion of the evidence, oral as well as documentary.
7. For the foregoing reasons and while placing reliance on the judgments supra, the revision petition in hand being devoid of any force and substance stands dismissed in limine.