' MUHAMMAD MUNIR KHAN, J.---This petition directed against the order dated 19-2-1995 passed by Peshawar High Court, Circuit Bench, Abbottabad in a writ petition, arises from the facts that on 29- 9-1985 Muhammad Afzal Khan respondent No,4 filed application for the restitution of mortgaged land against Karam Elahi and others petitioners before the Collector, Mansehra. The application was resisted amongst others on the ground of limitation. The Collector dismissed the application on 14-12-1987 as barred by time. The appeal filed by Muhammad Afzal Khan against the order of the Collector was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner on 15-9-1988. The revision filed by him against the order of the Additional Commissioner was dismissed by the Board of Revenue on 7-11- 1990. The aforementioned authorities were of the view that the limitation started from 20-9-1925 when the entry of the transaction of the mortgage was made in the Mutation by the Patwari so the suit filed on 29-9-1985 after more than sixty years o the entry in the Mutation was barred by time.
Feeling aggrieved thereby, Muhammad Afzal Khan respondent No,4 filed Writ Petition in the Peshawar High Court, Circuit Bench Abbottabad on 23-11-1991 praying that the aforesaid orders of the Revenue Authorities be declared without lawful authority and of no legal effect. Relying on the case Abdul Hanan and 8 others v. Kapoor Khan and 16 others (1970 SCM R 633), the High Court found that the starting point of limitation in the case shall be from 2-10-1925 when the mutation was attested and not from the date of entry of Mutation.
2. Mr. Muhammad Munir Peracha, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on Jangi v. Jhanda and others (PLD 1961 Baghdad-ul-Jadid 34) to contend that the High Court was wrong in holding that the limitation shall run from the date of attestation of the mutation. Learned counsel has argued that the well-reasoned orders of the Revenue Authorities have been interfered by the High Court without legal justification.
3. Having carefully examined the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the judgment relied upon by the High Court we find that the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners is quite distinguishable whereas the judgment relied on by the High Court is on all force. On careful examination of Article 148 of the Limitation Act, we are also of the view that in the instant case the right to sue for the restitution of the mortgaged land accrued on 2-10-1925 when the relevant mutation was sanctioned.
4. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused and the petition is dismissed.