' SH. IJAZ NISAR, J.---Leave is sought against the judgment, dated 30-6-1998, of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in R.S.A. No.754 of 1977.
2. The facts, in brief, are that one Allah Bakhsh sold 9 Kanals, 19 Marlas of land, situate in Mouza Shawanpur Shumali, Tehsil and District Bhakkar, in favour of Nazu Khan petitioner-vendee, through Mutation No.1202, dated 11-5-1973. Challenging the said sale, two separate suits one by Karam Hussain Khan, predecessor-in-interest of the respondent, and the other by one Fazal Hussain, were field on 3-1-1974 and 13-3-1974, respectively. The petitioner contested the suits. The learned Civil Judge vide judgment and decree, dated 23-4-1976, dismissed both the suits on the point of limitation.
3. Fazal Hussain did not file any appeal against the aforesaid judgment and decree, but Karam Hussain Khan respondent challenged the same. His appeal was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, vide judgment and decree, dated 26-9-1977.
4. Nazu Khan petitioner filed R.S.A. No.754 of 1977 in the Lahore High Court, which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge, the operative part whereof runs as under:- "As the question of limitation was only vis-a-vis the rival preemptor Fazal Hussain and not with regard to the suit filed by the present respondent, therefore, judgment and decree passed by the Court below undoubtedly on the question of limitation was misconceived and illegal and the appeal field by the respondent was accepted by the Appellate Court.
' In view of the above, I do not find any legal or factual infirmity in the impugned judgment and decree which is upheld. The appeal is accordingly dismissed."
' Hence, this petition.
5. It is contended that conclusions of the Courts below with regard to limitation are erroneous.
6. It is an admitted fact that no objection of limitation was raised by the petitioner in his written statement against the suit filed by Karam Hussain respondent. Accordingly, no issue was framed in that behalf by the learned trial Court. On the other hand it was admitted by the petitioner/ vendee that the land in dispute was purchased by him on 11-5-1973. In this view of the matter, the suit filed by the respondent on 3-1-1974 could not be said to be barred by limitation. Being a settled legal proposition no cavil can be made with the observation of the learned Additional District Judge that the period of limitation was to start from the date of attestation of mutation and not from the date when the respondent entered into possession of the land. The learned High Court has also held the suit to be within, time by giving sound reasons in support thereof.
7. In the above circumstances, there is no substance in the petitions, which is dismissed, and the leave is refused.