' The brief facts out of which the present revision petition arises are that the petitioners filed a suit for declaration to the effect that petitioners alongwith respondents Nos.21 to 29 are owners of land measuring 85 Kanals, 9 Marlas as 1/2 share of Khewat No,71/1, Khatooni No,353 measuring 171 Kanals 16 Marlas 1/3 sarsai; according to Jamabandi for the year 1991-92 and 1/2 of Ihata No,65 measuring 1 Kanal, 15 Marlas, and 7 sarsai, Chak No,199-RB Tehsil and District Faisalabad as heirs of Muhammad Boota son of Umar Bakhsh and Sale-Deed No,1299/1 registered on 19-11-1990 and Mutation No,761 based thereon, in favour of Abdullah, predecessor-in-interest of respondent No,1 and mutation of redemption No,83, dated 12-6-1941 are void and non-existent on account of having come into being after death of Muhammad Boota on 4-10-1940 and land measuring 59 Kanals and 4 Marlas having been sold by the petitioners/plaintiffs in favour of Mst. Rabi and Shah.
Muhammad, the mutation No,493, dated 18-7-1973 and Mutation No,1229 in favour of respondent- defendant No,13 are void and gift deed, dated 1260/1 registered on 12-1-1997 from respondent No,13 in favour of Shah Muhammad, predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos.13 to 17 in respect of land measuring 133 Kanals and 11 Marlas and mutation of sale-deed No,530 are void and there being no sale of 16 Kanals 3 Marlas and 3 sarsai by petitioners Nos.1 to 5, Muhammad Saeed, predecessorin-interest of respondents, Nos.22 to 27 and Abdul Aziz, Predecessor-in-interest of petitioners Nos.6 to 16, respondents Nos.28 & 29, the sale-deed, No,21677, dated 13-9-1981 and Mutation No,665 in favour of respondents Nos.18 to 21 are void without perpetual injunction restraining respondents Nos.1 to 21 and respondents Nos.30 to 36 from alienating the suit land and not to interfere in the sharing of usufruct of the said land of the petitioner and respondents Nos.2 to
29. Respondent No,4 and respondents No,22 to 27 accepted to claim of petitioners/plaintiff by filing of written statement while respondent No,13, 18 to 21, respondents Nos.29 to 32, 33, 34 to 36 filed written statement, controverted the allegation levelled in the plaint. Subsequently respondents Nos.13, 18 to 21, 29 to 32 and 34 to 36 also filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. For rejection of plaint.
' The petitioners/plaintiffs submitted reply of application, controverted the allegation levelled in the application. The learned trial Court accepted the application and rejected the plaint, being time- barred. The petitioners being aggrieved, filed an appeal before learned District Judge Faisalabad, who entrusted the same to learned Additional District. Judge, who also dismissed the appeal vide his judgment and decree, dated 15-1-1998; hence the present revision petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the matter was purely of inheritance an?
Both the Courts below did not consider this aspect of the case and accepted the application of respondents and rejected the plaint on the ground of limitation. He further contended that both the Courts below did not apply their minds and considered the documents/evidence beyond the contents of the plaint. He further contended that both the Courts below gave concurrent findings of fact after discussing the documents in depth without providing proper hearing to the petitioners to controvert the same by producing evidence. He further urged that both the Courts below decided the case in violation of principle laid down by the superior Courts and rejected the plaint. He relied on the following case law:-- ' 1997 SCMR 281; 1984 SCMR 826; 1997 SCMR 1218; 1983 SCMR 950; 1991 SCMR 2030 and 1995 CLC 101.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that question of inheritance did not arise in the present proceedings and both the Courts below gave concurrent findings of fact against the petitioners, therefore, revision petition is not maintainable. She further urged that basically the petitioners have challenged the sale deed 1299, dated 19-11-1944 after 55 years, therefore, both the Courts below rightly accepted the application of respondents/defendants. She further urged that both the Courts below rightly examined the documents attached with the plaint by the petitioners.
She further urged that sale deed was executed in the year 1944 and the petitioners filed copy of sale deed with the plaint which revealed that the petitioners obtained the certified copy of the sale deed on 14-2-1989 with the stamp of "A.R. Lyallpur". She further urged that both the Courts below considered this aspect of the case, that name of Lyallpur was changed in the year 1976 and the certified copy produced by the petitioners/plaintiffs alongwith plaint revealed District Lyallpur which clearly shows that the petitioners/plaintiffs obtained copy of sale-deed in the year 1976 or 1977, therefore, the petitioners/plaintiffs had knowledge of sale deed in the year 1976/77 but the suit was filed in the year 1996 (4-7-1996), therefore, the same was also time-barred by virtue of Article 120 of Limitation Act. She further stated that the petitioners/plaintiffs never have possession of the land in question since 1944 till 1996. She also contended that the petitioners did not affix the proper Court-fee and both the Courts below have rightly taken into consideration these facts. She urged that both the Courts below decided the case in accordance with law and principle laid down by the superior Courts. She relied upon the following case law:-- ' 1992 CLC 1122; 1992 CLC 2282; PLD 1997 Karachi 208; PLD 1997 Karachi 292; 1998 SCMR 341 and 1997 CLC 578.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contention of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is better and appropriate to reproduce certain contents of plaint to resolve the controversy between the parties which are as follows:-- {{URDU TEXT}} The aforesaid contents of plaint revealed that number of relief claimed by the petitioners/plaintiffs qua the aforesaid sale-deed, dated 18-5-1944 including inheritance of the predecessor-in-interest of petitioners/plaintiffs. It is settled proposition.Of law that question of limitation does not arise in case controversy relating to inheritance. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered this proposition of law and reviewed all the case law on the subject in Ghulam Ali's case (PLD 1990 SC 1).
Subsequently Hon'ble Supreme Court followed dictum in the aforesaid case in 1991 SCMR 515; both the Courts below did not consider this aspect of the case while deciding the application filed by the respondents/defendants under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C.Even otherwise question of limitation in the case being mixed question of law and facts as indicated by assertion made in plaint, coupled with the documents attached with the plaint, evidence should have been recorded thereon and thereafter, it should have been decided. I am supported by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Irshad Ali's case (PLD 1995 SC 629) and PLD 1963 Karachi 161). The Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down a principle in Khuda Yar's case (PLD 1975 SC 678); that technicalities should defeat the ends of justice and the relevant observation is as follows:-- ' "These two provisions read together lead to the irreparable conclusion that mere technicalities unless offering an insurmountable hurdle should be led to defeat the ends of justice."
' The Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down a principle after addition of Article 2-A of Constitution that cases must be decided on merits instead of technicalities in Sher Muhammad's case (PLD 1989 SC 532). The relevant observation is as follows:-- ' "A party should not be denied a relief on account of technicalities in the procedural law, as the same is formed for the purpose of regulating the legal proceedings, they are extended and designed to foster the cause of justice rather than to defeat it."
' Subsequently the aforesaid judgment was also considered in Mst. Sardaran's case 1993 SCMR 363 and followed the same principle. It is settled proposition of law that limitation law should be liberally construed without giving violence to intention of legislature. It must be applied for benefit of plaintiff. I am fortified by the reported judgment 1988 CLC 332. It is also settled principle of law that the rules framed in the Code of Civil Procedure are Rules made for the advancement of justice and they should not, as far as possible be allowed to defeat the ends of justice. I am fortified by the judgment of Muhammad Sarwar's case 1980 CLC 946.
'
5. In view of, for what has been discussed above, this revision petition is accepted and the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below are set aside. The case is remanded to the trial Court and trial Court shall frame the issues out of the pleadings of parties and decide the same on merits, preferably within six months, after receiving the order of this Court. There is no order as to costs. The office is directed to send the record forthwith to the trial Court.