1. ' WALL MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.---Fatima Moeen appellant, through leave of the Court, has challenged the order, dated 5-11-1990 of the Lahore High Court, whereby her Writ Petition No,6253 of 1990 against the. Order of the Additional District Judge, dated 7-6-1990 accepting the revision petition against order, dated 5-9-1988 passed by the Civil Judge refusing to reject the plaint, was dismissed.
2. ' The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that during the minority of the appellant, her mother was appointed as guardian by the Guardian Judge, both, for her person and property. During her minority, Mst. Nadira Moeen, her guardian, alienated the suit property in favour of defendants 1 to 3/respondents 2 to 4, vide Mutation No,302 sanctioned on 29-11-1973, who, in their turn, sold the same in favour of the other defendants through different deeds as described in the plaint. The appellant had gone abroad for higher studies and on her return in the year 1984, she came to know of the alienation of her landed property, therefore, she instituted the present suit for declaration that the original sale vide Mutation No,302 was illegal, void ab initio and ineffective on her rights on account of the transaction having been entered into without the prior permission of the Guardian Judge and was not for the benefit of the minor or for legal necessity. A prayer for joint possession was also made. The defendants contested the suit and in their written statement raised several pleas including the plea of limitation and rejection of the plaint under order VII, Rule 11 of the C.P.C.
3. Subsequently, a separate application dated 4-4-1987 was submitted to the Court for rejection of the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 which was resisted by the appellant and the learned Trial Court vide its order, dated 5-9-1988 came to the conclusion that limitation being mixed question of law and facts, could only be decided after framing the issues in the case, allowing opportunity to the parties to produce their evidence thereon and thereafter adjudication on merits, including the plea of limitation and in consequence, holding the application as premature, dismissed it. The revision petition was filed against it to the District Judge which was accepted vide order dated 7-6-1990 and by setting aside the order of the Trial Court, the plaint was rejected under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. The appellant challenged the same through a Constitutional petition but could not succeed and hence the instant appeal.
4. ' We have heard Mr. Ahmad Hassan Khan, Advocate, for the appellant, Ch. M. Hassan, Advocate, for the respondents and have perused the record of the case. The only question for determination before us is whether the provisions of Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. Were attracted in the present case or not. It would, therefore, be advantageous to reproduce the said rule for convenience sake:--- "11. Rejection of plaint.--The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:--
(a) where it does not disclose a cause of action;
(b) where the relief claimed is under-valued, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to correct the valuation within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
(c) where the relief claimed is properly valued, but the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiff, on being required by the Court to supply the requisite stamp-paper within a time to be fixed by the Court, fails to do so;
(d) where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law."
5. It is apparent from the perusal of the above provision of law that the Court can reject a plaint if from the statement of facts narrated therein, it finds that the suit is barred by time. We accordingly, perused the contents of the plaint but could not find any statement of fact justifying the application of Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. The appellant was admittedly minor at the time of the original sale and was within her right to challenge the same on any ground available to her under the law after attaining majority. The period of limitation provided for a suit for declaration is six years from the accrual of cause of action, but it is by now well-settled that every subsequent invasion on the rights of plaintiff affords fresh cause of action for the institution of suit. The subsequent alienations enumerated in the plaint by the original transferee took place within a period of six years from the institution of the suit and as such the lower forums have to take this into consideration while determining the plea of limitation regarding the prayer of the appellant for declaration. Moreover, the appellant has also prayed for joint possession for which the period of limitation prescribed is twelve years which commences from the time when the possession of the defendants becomes adverse. Obviously these important factors could not be gone into by the lower forums summarily without framing of an issue and allowing parties to produce evidence thereon. Further, there is no written deed evidencing the original transfer and since, as held by this Court in several judgments, mutations by themselves do not create title, the lower forums have also to determine whether any prayer for cancellation of mutation was at all necessary. The determination of the age of the appellant is also necessary for the decision of the point of limitation. In the circumstances, we are convinced that the trial Judge was perfectly justified in declining to reject the plaint summarily without-proper evidence and the learned District Judge legally erred in upsetting his order. The learned High Court, too, failed to enter deep into the legal controversy and dismissed the writ petition.
6. ' Resultantly, we accept the instant appeal, set aside the orders of Additional District Judge as well as of the High Court and restore that of the trial Court and remand the case back to him for decision according to law on the merits of the case including the plea of limitation.