1. ' SALEEM AKHTAR, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order of learned Judges of the Division Bench whereby his appeal challenging the order of dismissal of his application under Order XLVII, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. Was dismissed in limine. The respondents Nos.1 to 4 filed suit against the petitioner and two other legal heirs of Abdul Rahim for accounts, injunction, removal of Mutwali and appointment of new Mutwali. It was alleged that one Abdul Rahim who is the predecessor-in-interest of the parties herein executed a trust deed on 8th August, 1991 (sic) which was registered with the Sub-Registrar, Karachi. This trust was created in respect of property bearing old Survey No,133, Sheet G-4, new Survey No,12, Sheet S-B-4, Saddar Bazar, Karachi known as `Speechly Building' and property bearing old Survey No,14, Sheet F-9, new Survey No,16 Sheet CL- 10, Civil Lines Quarter, 'Civil Lines Bungalow'. Abdul Rahim died on 1st September, 1988 (sic). In terms of the Waqf Deed Mst. Hanifa Bai, the wife of Abdul Rahim discharged her duty as trustee after the death of Abdul Rahim. She died on 25th May, 1964 but before her death by means of a deed of nomination dated 28th December, 1963 she had appointed petitioner to act as Mutwali after her death. It was alleged that the petitioner did not perform her duties properly nor any account was maintained in a proper manner. Suit was then filed in December 1988 seeking direction to the petitioner to render full true and complete accounts of all the rent profits Pugri/goodwill collected by him in respect of the Waqf property, removal of the petitioner as Mutwali of Waqf and to appoint respondent No,1 or any other respondent as a new Mutwali. By order, dated 11-2-1990 the petitioner was removed as Mutwali and a preliminary decree was passed. The review application filed by the petitioner also failed.
2. ' The learned Judge in Chamber dismissed the review application as well as application under section 12(2), C.P.C. High Court appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed in limine.
3. ' Mr. Muzafarul Haq, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that suit was filed in the year 1988 after 15 years and therefore it was barred by time and the learned Judge in Chamber should have taken note of this fact and decide accordingly. The suit was filed in respect of a trust property, for removal of Mutwali/Trustee and for accounts. For a suit of this nature no period of limitation has been provided. In this regard section 10 of the Limitation Act may be referred which reads as follows:--- "10. Notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, no suit against a person in whom property has become vested in trust for any specific purpose, or against his legal representatives or assigns (not being assigns for valuable consideration), for the purpose following in his or their hands such property or the proceeds thereof, or for an account of such property or proceeds, shall be barred by any length of time.
4. ' For the purpose of this section any property comprised in a Hindu, Muhammadan or Buddhist religious or charitable endowment shall be deemd to be property vested in trust for a specific purpose, and the manager of any such property shall be deemed to be the trustee thereof."
5. By this provision the bar of limitation provided by the Limitation Act, will not be applicable to suits filed for accounts against persons who are vested with the trust property for management or for any specific purpose. Such suit can be filed against the legal representative of the trustee. An assignee without valuable consideration can also be sued without any bar of limitation. The law intends to protect the trust property and it can be followed even in the hands of the legal representatives of the trustee. No period of limitation has been provided for filing such suit against the trustee charged with management of the trust property. The petition is dismissed.