' ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J.---This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Balochistan dated 20-9-1993 passed in two Civil Revisions No,188 of 1993 and No,215 of 1993 whereby order of Majlis-e-Shoora dated 20-7-1993 remanding the case to the trial Court for fresh decision was set aside and the suit of the petitioner/plaintiff dismissed on the ground of limitation.
2. Facts relevant for the disposal of this petition, briefly stated, are that the present petitioner brought a suit in the Court of the Qazi, Lower Zhob, Sheerani on 9-4-1981 for a declaration that he was the owner of 1/4th share in some land and water description whereof was not given in the plaint. It was averred by the petitioner that the suit property was owned by his predecessor- ininterest who had abandoned his ancestral abode during the days of disturbances and left for Afghanistan where he died about 40 years ago. Petitioner claimed that he was the sole heir of his father and was thus entitled to the suit property which, it was alleged, was usurped by the respondents during the absence of the petitioner and his father. Suit was contested by the defendants/respondents who repudiated the petitioner's claim contending that the property in their possession had been purchased by them from one Mengal who in turn had purchased it from one Zatoo Khan on 2-12-1952.
3. The trial Court framed the issues, recorded the evidence led by the parties and decreed the suit vide judgment dated 28-11-1992. Respondents preferred an appeal which was accepted by the Majlis-e-Shoora, Loralai and the case was remanded to the trial Court with certain observations for fresh decision in accordance with law. This was vide judgment dated 20-7-1993. Both the parties felt aggrieved of the judgment of the appellate Court and approached the High Court in revisional jurisdiction. Petitioner filed Civil Revision No,188 of 1993 praying for the reversal of the remand order passed by the appellate Court. Respondents Nos.1 to 4 filed Civil Revision No,215 of 1993 seeking dismissal of the petitioner's suit on the ground that it was barred by limitation and further that the petitioner being out of possession, his suit for mere declaration of title was not competent.
4. Learned Judge of the High Court took up both the petitions together and after considering the respective contentions of the learned counsel for, the parties on the question of limitation held that according to the averments made in para. 3 of the plaint, petitioner's father had died about 40 years ago in Afghanistan and during all this period, he did not file any suit for declaration regarding his share in the property. The learned Judge observed that the limitation period for filing the suit for declaration under residuary Article 120 of the Limitation Act being six years, suit of the petitioner was hopelessly time-barred and the same was accordingly dismissed on the ground of limitation.
Both the revision petitions were, thus, disposed of vide the impugned judgment dated 20-9-1993.
5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. He has contended that the petitioner and the respondents were the co-sharers in the property in dispute which was never partitioned. Petitioner would, therefore, be deemed to be in possession of the suit property and could seek declaration of his title any time and no limitation shall run against him for filing the suit.
We have gone through the copy of the plaint placed on the present record. It has no where been alleged therein that the petitioner and the respondents were the co-sharers. On the other hand, the petitioner categorically asserted in para. 4 of the plaint that the defendants taking advantage of his absence and that of his father took possession of the entire cultivable land. In the circumstances, cause of action on A the, petitioner's own showing accrued to him about forty years prior to the institution of the suit. Suit brought by him was, thus, patently time-barred and it was rightly so held by the learned Judge of the High Court. Since the bar of limitation was apparent from the contents of the plaint itself, the learned Judge rightly dismissed the suit on the ground of limitation instead of remanding the case to the Courts below.
6. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the impugned judgment of the High Court is unexceptionable.
This petition is without any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.