AJMAL MIAN, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 7-3-1988 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in Civil Revision No.511-D of 1987 filed by the petitioner, dismissing the same and maintaining the judgments and decrees dated 21-12-1982 and 7-6-1987 passed by the learned Civil Judge, find Class, Rawalpindi, and the learned Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi, in Suit No. Nil and Civil Appeal No. 64 of 1986, respectively, decreeing the suit of specific performance of the respondent in the following terms:--
27. On the basis of my fore-discussion, I hereby pass a decree for the Specific Performance of the Contract of suit House No.U 11/11-A Bazar Talwaran, Rawalpindi, in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendants. The plaintiff(s) have already paid sale price to defendant No.1. Anyhow they will pay Rs.1,35,200 to defendants Nos.2 and 3 as costs of reconstruction of suit house. The plaintiffs are directed to deposit said amount of Rs.1,35,200 on or upto 15-2-1983 in the Court otherwise their suit will be deemed to be dismissed with costs. After the deposit of said amount the plaintiffs will be entitled to get registered sale-deed in their favour by the defendants or with the assistance of this Court on their own costs.
However parties are left to bear their own costs in the present instance."
The brief facts to be noted are that respondent No.1l, who was defendant No.1 in the suit, was in possession of house bearing No.U/11-11-A Bazqr Talwaran, Rawalpindi, hereinafter referred to as the house. He applied for the Transfer of the house under the Settlement Scheme which application was accepted. The respondent No.1l in order to pay the price of the house entered into an agreement of association on 10-9-1964 with the predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos.1 to 10, namely, late Sh. Bashir Ahmad, hereinafter referred to as the deceased, for using his compensation book. He also executed another agreement on the above date i.e. 10-9-1964 and got it registered in which it was agreed that in case respondent No.11 would not pay four consecutive instalments of the price of the amount of compensation book used, deceased would become the owner of the house. Respondent No.1l was issued a P.T.O. On 10-2-1962 and a P 'C.D. On 14-3-1970. It appears that respondent No.1 executed another agreement on 9-3-1967 in favour of the deceased relinquishing his interest in the house in favour of said deceased and also agreeing to get the house transferred in the record of the Settlement Department in favour of the deceased. The above agreement dated 9-3-1967 was presented before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner for approval but he without issuing any notice to the parties declared the request by his order dated 24-9-1969. The deceased filed an appeal against the above order which was allowed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner by his order dated 22-7-1970 on the ground that the deceased's above application could not have been disposed of without issuing notice to the parties and the case remanded to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. Against the above order, the present petitioners who by then under a registered sale-decd dated 25-3-1970 had purchased the house from respondent No.1l, filed a revision which was dismissed by the Settlement Commissioner by his order dated 7-4-1571.
Against the above order, the petitioners filed Writ Petition No.632-R of 1971 which was disposed of by a learned single Judge by his judgment dated 16-8-1971 and which was the subject-matter of Civil Appeal No.40 of 1980, which we have disposed of today by a separate judgment.
3. It appears that while the above controversy was going on, deceased filed aforesaid suit on 26-1- 1971 for declaration, in the alternate specific performance The above suit was resisted by the present petitioner and respondent No.11 but t the learned Civil Judge by his aforesaid judgment and decree dated 21-12-1982 decreed the suit in the above terms. Against the above judgment and decree, the petitioner filed aforesaid appeal which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge by his aforesaid judgment and decree dated 7-6-1987. Against the above two judgments and decrees, the petitioner filed aforesaid R.S.A. Which was dismissed by a learned single Judge of the Lahore High Court by the impugned judgment dated 7-3-1988. The petitioners have, therefore, filed the present petition for leave to appeal.
4. Mr. A.R. Shaukat, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing for the petitioners in support of the above petition, has made two submissions, firstly, that the suit was time-barred and secondly, the agreements dated 10-4-1964 and 9-3-1967 could not have been the basis for decreeing the suit for specific performance.
In support of his above first submission, he has submitted that the alleged cause of action, if any, accrued to the deceased in 1964 when the aforesaid agreement dated 10-4-1964 was entered into and when it was breached. However, we find that the Courts below have exhaustively dilated upon the question of limitation. It will suffice to reproduce the finding of the High Court on the above question, which reads as follows:- "I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the file with their assistance. It is on the file that an agreement between the parties was entered into for the first time on 10-9-1964, and then an agreement of deed of relinquishment dated 9-3-1967. The suit was filed on 26-1-1971. In the agreement referred to above, no date for the performance of contract is given.
Had any date been given then this argument could have been available to learned counsel for the petitioners that on the expiry of the time given in the agreement, the period of limitation would start running. In the instant case, after the agreement and the deed of relinquishment executed between the parties. Sh. Zahoor Ahmad, the transferee, also executed a rent deed with regard to the same property in favour of Sh. Bashir Ahmad. This would clearly show that at no point of time respondent No.1 had a notice that the performance of the agreement between the parties is being refused. This fact came to his notice for the first time on 25-3-1970, when transferee Sh. Zahoor Ahmad executed a registered sale-decd, Ex.P.l3 in favour or petitioners Nos.1 and 2. In such circumstances, the period of limitation would start running from 25-3-1970. Since the suit was filed on 26-1-1971, therefore, I hold that it was well within time."
We are inclined to hold that the approach of the Courts below on the question of limitation was in consonance with law.
5. Adverting to the above second submission that the above agreements could not have been the basis for decreeing the suit for specific performance, reliance was placed on the case of Mian Muhammad Abdullah v. West Pakistan Road Transport Corporation, Lahore. (1982 SCMR 378) in which this Court, while declining leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court passed in a civil revision petition, observed that since the agreement which was the subject- matter of the suit was not valid, it could not have been specifically enforced. The above case has no application to the instant case. The petition has no merits and, therefore, leave is refused.