1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by a defendcnt in a suit for recovery of damages, against the dismissal by the High Court of its Civil Revision (against the dismissal of his time-barred appeal).
2. ' The only point urged by the learned counsel is that the respondents' suit was time-barred. When questioned whether the plea of limitation was, in that behalf, raised before the trial Court and an issue was sought to be framed, the learned counsel answered in the negative; but contended that this plea having been taken in the first appeal Court, that Court and the High Court were duty bound to examine and decide it on merits. We do not agree with him. It has been held in a number of cases decided by this Court that if a party does not raise the plea of limitation before the Court concerned to which the plea initially relates, the same could not be raised as of right before a higher forum simply because the lower forum was under a duty to examine the question of limitation. As admitted,A this question was not raised before the trial Court. In the circumstances of this case, we would not examine it at this stage. On merits also, we have not been able to find any infirmity in the imugncd judgment Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused with the remarks that the petitioner may recover the amount in question from its employee/s found in default. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.