' By this common judgment, I intend to dispose of the above two Revision Applications.
The brief facts leading to the filing of the above Revision Application are that the present applicant by a Sale Agreement dated 10-8-1966 (Ex.8) agreed to sell a plot of land bearing old survey No,41 and New Survey No,468, situated in Deh Mehran. Tapo Malir, Taulka and District Karachi, measuring 1400 square yards, at Rs,7 per square yards for a total consideration of Rs,9,800 out of which a sum of Rs,500 was paid by respondent No,1 to the applicant and the balance was to be paid at the time of the transfer of the plot in favour of respondent No,l. The respondent No,1 served a legal notice dated 5-8-1974 (Ex.9) alleging therein that in spite of repeated promises, the applicant had not completed the Sale Agreement. The above notice was replied to by Respondent No,1 by his Advocate's letter dated 12-8-1974 (Ex.10), whereby he denied the averments contained in Respondent No,l's Advocate's above notice and had alleged that the default was on the part of the Respondent No,l. It was also alleged that after cancelling the agreement he sold the same to Respondent No,2 in June, 1974. It appears that thereafter Respondent No,1 filed Suit No,2368 of 1974 for specific performance of the Sale Agreement. He also filed suit No,1737 of 1975. Both the above suits were contested by the present applicant. The learned trial Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed as many as 14 {{PAGE CUT}} issues. Respondent No,1 in support of the suit examined himself two witnesses namely, P.W.1 Chaudhary Bashir Ahmed and P. Muhammad Rauf, whereas the applicant examined himself and witnesses i,e, D.W.2 Faiz Muhammad and D.W.3. Ghulam Rasool. Learned trial Court after hearing the parties decreed both the s by a common judgment dated 3-1-1981. The applicant being aggrievd by the above judgment/decree filed First Appeal Nos.63 of 1981 a 64 of 1981 but the same were dismissed by a common judgment da 29-2-1984. The applicant being aggrieved by the above judgment decrees has filed the above two Revision Applications.
2. Mr. Usman Ghani Rashid, learned counsel for the applicant support of the above Revisions has vehemently argued that the s of the respondent for specific performance was barred by limitat inasmuch as it was filed in 1974 in relation to the Sale Agreement 1966. It may be observed that Respondent No,1 in para 5 of plaint has averred that the cause of action accrued on 10-8-1966 finally on 12-8-1974 when the applicant refused to complete the transaction. The applicant in reply to the above para, in para 5 the written statement had raised the plea of limitation but had aver: that no cause of action had accrued to Respondent No,l. It a appears that the question of limitation was -not argued before learned trial Court. However, this point was raised before the lean 1st Appellate Court and was considered which is evident from appellants court's judgment. The learned appellate Court has recoi a finding of fact even on the question of limitation against the pres applicant.
3. I have gone through the evidence of the parties on recon Ac9ording to the statement of the appellant he had allegedly cancel the Sale Agreement in May, 1974. If the above statement of applicant is to be accepted as correct, in that event it is evid that even the applicant kept the sale Agreement alive till May, 19 This lends support to the conclusion arrived at by the learned Appellate Court that in fact refusal on the part of the applicant in 1974 and, therefore, the suit was within time as it was filed 1974 within the period of 3 years from the date of refusal as Article 113 of the First Schedule to the Limitation Act. The find on the question of limitation, in my view, seems to be in consona with the evidence on record. There are other concurrent findings the other questions which need not be disturbed in these Revision Applications.
4. Both the Revision Applications are, therefore, dismissed there will be no order as to costs.