This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 21-5-1992 passed by learned Additional District Judge-I, Bahawalnagar whereby appeal brought by petitioners against judgment and decree dated 15-5-1991 passed by Civil Judge, Chishtian, District Bahawalnagar was dismissed.
2. The relevant facts for the disposal of this revision petition are that petitioners/plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration to the effect that plaintiffs and respondents Nos. 12 to 16 being legal heirs of Abdul Sattar were owners in possession of the suit-land and that respondents Nos. 1 to 8/defendants have no concern with the same and that order dated 26-11-1990 passed by Assistant Commissioner, Chishtian was illegal, ineffective and liable to be cancelled. The petitioners stated that their predecessor---in-interest (Abdul Sattar) purchased suit-land from Muhammad Ishaq (predecessor-in---interest of defendant) vide registered sale---deed dated 21-6-1947 and obtained possession of the same. They further stated that after the death of Abdul Sattar they alongwith defendants Nos. 12 to 16 occupied the suit-- land as his legal heirs. The plaintiffs maintained that Abdul Sattar had not applied for mutation in his favour on the basis of said registered sale-deed, therefore, plaintiffs submitted copy of registered sale-deed before Revenue Officer whereupon Mutation No.522 was sanctioned on 14-2-1990. They further maintained that defendants Nos.1 to 4 filed appeal against said order before Collector, Chishtian who accepted the same vide order dated 26-11-1990 and cancelled the mutation. The plaintiffs alleged that order, dated 26-11-1990 passed by Collector, Chishtian was illegal, therefore, they were constrained to file civil suit. The petitioners/plaintiffs also filed application for issuance of temporary injunction alongwith their suit. The defendants filed written statement and reply to the application. At the time of hearing arguments on the application for temporary injunction learned trial Court rejected the plaint vide judgment dated 15-5-1991 being time-barred. The petitioner filed appeal against the said judgment but the same was also dismissed by learned Additional District Judge-I, Bahawalnagar vide judgment dated 21-5-1992. Hence this revision petition.
3. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that impugned judgment is against law and facts of the case. He further submits that petitioners had purchased suit-land vide registered sale-deed dated 21-6-1947 and since then they are in possession of the same, therefore, suit brought by them is not time --barred. Further submits that respondents/defendants have admitted in written statement that plaintiffs are in possession of the suit-land and that question of limitation is mixed question of law and fact, therefore, it was necessary for the trial Court to frame issue before deciding case. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents submits that plaintiffs have filed suit for declaration on the basis of registered sale-deed dated 21-6-1947 and they are not in possession of suit-land, therefore, suit brought by them is time-barred and Courts below have rightly rejected their plaint.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. The case of petitioners/plaintiffs is that Abdul Sattar (predecessor-in-interest of plaintiffs and defendants Nos.
12 to 16) had purchased suit-land vide registered sale-deed, dated 21-6-1947 and since then they are in possession of the same. Also that Revenue officer had rightly sanctioned mutation in their favour, therefore, order dated 26-11-1990 passed by Collector is illegal and that suit was not time- barred. The perusal of written statement shows that defendants have admitted that plaintiffs are, in possession of the suit-land. As mentioned above on the basis of said registered sale-deed Mutation No.522 was sanctioned on 22-5-1990. Then respondents/defendants filed appeal against A the said order and the same was accepted by Collector vide judgment dated 26-11-1990.
However, suit was filed on 8-12-1990. As such prima facie suit was not time-barred. Even otherwise as mentioned earlier petitioners/plaintiffs are in possession of the suit-land. No period of limitation has anywhere been prescribed for the entry and attestation of a sale mutation on the basis of a registered sale-deed. In fact when a sale-deed is admitted to registration it is the duty of registration authorities to suo motu send a Parcha Registry to the concerned Revenue Authorities for the entry and attestation of mutation on the strength thereof. So even if the vendee or transferee does not present the registered deed before Revenue Authorities for the entry of sale mutation, it is the duty of Revenue Authorities to enter up an appropriate mutation in the Revenue Record on the basis of said Parcha Registry directly sent by Registration Authorities The registered sale-deed in question is still very much intact. Admittedly the respondents have not so far instituted any legal proceedings for the cancellation of the registered sale-deed. It is, therefore, not open to the respondents to bring up any collateral attack on the validity of registered sale-deed.
Even otherwise the law is well-settled that party in possession isle never out of time. Apart from that the question of limitation has always been held to be a mixed question of law and fact, trial or disposal whereof cannot be permitted to be E undertaken without allowing opportunity of producing evidence, pro and contra to the contesting parties. It has been so held by the Honourable apex Court in 1992 SCM R 1828 and 1999 SCM R 2396. In the latter case the question of limitation was considered the context of Order 7, rule 11, C.P.C. And it was held that the suit in question could not be held to be out of time merely on the basis of an application under Order 7, rule 11, C.P.C. Or the assertion so advanced in written statement. As such the question of limitation raised in this case should not have been prematurely decided by the learned Courts below. In these circumstances I find that both the Courts below have acted in haste, F therefore, judgments passed by learned Civil Judge and learned Additional District Judge are not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same are liable to be set aside.
6. For what has been discussed above this revision petition is accepted, impugned judgments are set aside and case is remanded to the trial Court for decision afresh in accordance with law and after recording evidence of the parties. The parties shall appear before trial Court on 28-10-2002.
Till the decision of case status quo shall be maintained. The case was instituted on 8-12-1990, therefore, trial Court is directed to decide it within one year (till 6-10-2003). No order as to costs.