1. MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J.--In this petition leave is sought on the ground that the High Court erroneously refused to allow the petitioners to raise the question of limitation which was the only point urged at the hearing. The High Court held that as this point was not raised either in the written statement or at any stage of the proceedings, therefore, it was too late in the day to press it.
2. As will appear from the record, the petitioners had filed a suit for possession alleging that the respondent was not the real son of Mauls Bakhsh and that they were the heirs who inherited his property. The trial Court held that the respondent was the real son of Maula Bakhsh, and that the petitioners had brought a false suit against him in order to defame and deprive him of his legal rights. Accordingly, it dismissed the suit and awarded special costs of Rs.1,000 to the respondent. In the suit, subsequently filed for damages, the petitioners did not lead any evidence and the trial Court held that it was a clear-cut case of defamation, and, accordingly, awarded damages of Rs.25,000. The appeal failed and in the revision the petitioners did not question the conclusion on merits.
3. On this view of the matter, when the question of limitation was not raised to non-suit the respondent, it is too late in the day to raise this plea and the High Court was justified in refusing to consider it on the ground stated.
4. Accordingly, we find no substance in this petition and dismiss it.