1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, CI-This appeal through leave of the Court is directed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court; whereby respondents' Civil Revision, filed against a declaratory decree passed in appellants/plaintiffs' favour and affirmed in appeal, was accepted on the ground that the appellants' suit was barred by limitation.
2. ' The facts and point noted for grant of leave to appeal are as follows:- "The dispute relates to the property left by Noor Muhammad son of Nathu who died issueless on 13- 11-1956. On 29-4-1958 a mutation of inheritance was attested whereby 1/4th of the property left by him was given to his widow Mst. Nek Bibi and the remaining share was recorded in the name of his paternal-aunt, Mst. Fatima. Mst. Fatima gifted her share to her son Noor Muhammad, respondent No,1 on 10-5-1963. On 26-4-1966, respondent No,1 sold his share to Imam Din, father of respondent No,2. On 26-7-1972, Mst. Bibi brought a suit for a declaration that she was the real sister of Noor Muhammad son of Nathoo and as such on his death she had become the owner of 3/4th share in the land left by him. The suit was decreed by the trial Court after holding that Mst.Bibi being the sister of Noor Muhammad son of Nathoo excluded Mst. Fatima who was comparatively more distantly related. From the judgment of the trial Court, the respondents preferred an appeal but it was dismissed by the Additional District Judge. They then filed a revision petition in the High Court.
3. A learned Single Judge accepted the revision petition, set aside the judgments of the subordinate Courts and dismissed the suit on the ground that it was barred by time."
4. ' The suit filed by Mst. Bibi was one for seeking a declaration. The learned Single Judge took the view that as the suit had not been brought within 6 years of the attestation of the mutation on 29-4- 1958, it was cut of time. Learned counsel for the appellants stated that he should be permitted to amend the plaint so as to seek the relief of possession. He supported his request by reference to a judgment of this Court in Mst. Ghulam Bibi v. Sarsa Khan PLD 1985 SC 345.
5. ' It was contended that mere attestation of mutation on 29-4-58 whereby Mst. Bibi was excluded could not be treated as the starting point for limitation against her and that the first hostile act against her interest took place on 10-5-1963 when Mst. Fatima made gift of her share to her son.
6. Since the suit was brought within 12 years of this date, it could not after the amendment of the plaint, be treated as out of time. In support of this contention reference has been made to the decision of this Court in Najabat v. Saban Bibi PLD 1982 SC 187.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent remained unable to advance any serious argument or even to oppose seriously the point that in the circumstances of this case the plaint could be directed and permitted to be amended. We order accordingly.
8. ' Thus, amended plaint, will make the suit within time as it was filed within 12 years of the date on which Mst. Fatima made gift of her share to her son.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent stated that mere fact that the suit would be within limitation would not result in the final success of the appellants. According to him the respondent has a very strong case on newly-discovered evidence that Mst.Bibi who claimed to be the sister of Noor Muhammad and daughter of Nathoo was in fact the daughter of another person and she inherited the property in that family. He further argued that the High Court having decided the Civil Revision filed by the respondents' side on the ground of limitation, the respondent's case on merits and facts was not properly examined. He pleaded that instead of finally deciding the case it should be remanded to the High Court for deciding the respondent's Civil Revision afresh after admitting the additional evidence to be adduced by the respondent's side.
10. This plea of the learned counsel for the respondent is also well based on justice and fairplay as was the plea of the appellants' side, for removing a technical bar by permitting the amendment of the plaint. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the appellants in his turn could not oppose the plea raised from the respondent's side: that the case should be remanded to the High Court for hearing the respondent's plea on merits after admitting the additional evidence.
11. ' We, accordingly, allow the prayer made from the respondents' side for admission of the additional evidence. The same shall be formally proved and placed before the High Court. On admission of additional evidence from the respondent's side, the appellants' side shall of course be also allowed opportunity of rebuttal.
12. ' The learned counsel for the respondent also sought permission to raise another plea of merits; namely, that even if Mst. Bibi is proved to be the sister of Noor Muhammad she would not be entitled to get 3/4th share but only one-half. This plea also in so far as it relates to the raising of the question of the correctness of share allowed to Mst. Bibi, has not been opposed by the learned counsel for the appellants. The same may be advanced before the High Court at the time of the rehearing of the revision petition.
13. ' We highly appreciate the conduct of the respective sides through their learned counsel. It seems to be the model of fairplay by two opposing counsel representing clashing interests but at the same time advancing the cause of justice and fairplay.
14. ' With the foregoing observations this appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment is set aside and the case is remanded to the High Court for fresh decision of the Civil Revision on merits, in accordance with law and the observations made above.