2023 CLC 1725
There is no denial that period to file suit for declaration in terms of Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908 is six years and the suit in hand instituted on 22.02.2022 for seeking declaration was certainly barred by time. Per mandate of s. 3 of the Act ibid, sine non qua for the Court to scrutinize the plaint, application & appeal on the point of limitation regardless of the fact that said issue had been agitated by either party or not. There is no second opinion that law of limitation being statute of repose is designed to quit title as well as to bar, stale water logged disputes, which must be strictly complied with, thus this Court cannot refrain itself from applying the said law even if the other party is not here to raise such objection. There is yet another damaging factor that the petitioner had sought decree for declaration of title on the basis of alleged agreement to sell dated 21.05.1984 (from non-title holder), which even did not create any right, title or interest in the property. On this score as well suit for declaration on the face of it was not maintainable. Reliance is placed on Muhammad Yousaf v. Munawar Hussain and 5 others (2000 SCMR 204). Additionally, well established by now that a plaint can be rejected when comes within mischief of o. VII r.7 CPC. There is no cavil that under aforesaid clause (d) as soon as Court comes to the conclusion that suit is barred by law, the plaint is to be straightaway rejected to relieve the defendant(s) of vexatious litigation. This power can be exercised at any stage and even by the Appellate or Revisional Court. It also cannot be denied that the Court is empowered to reject the plaint suo motu without there being any application filed by rival party, when comes to the conclusion that it does not disclose any cause of action or barred by time/law. To arrive at this view, this Court is fortified by the case law reported as Muhammad Shafi and 5 others v. Amanat Ali and 5 others (2005 MLD 559), wherein while relying upon series of judgments cited as Muhammad Swaleh and another v. Messrs United Grain and Fodder Agencies (PLD 1964 SC 97), H.M.Saya and Co. Karachi v. Wazir Ali Industries Limited, Karachi and another (PLD 1969 SC 65), Municipal Committee Bahawalpur v. Sh. Aziz Elahi (PLD 1970 SC 506), Muhammad Salim and others v. D.C.O and others (1994 MLD 295) and Muhammad Saleem and another v. Mst. Zarina Begum and 4 others (1996 MLD 1959) it was held so. there is no ambiguity that during the course of exercise of revisional jurisdiction, the Court can pass any order needed in the circumstances of the case including rejection of plaint, if the same is required on the touchstone of the provision referred above. The limitation in such like cases is purely a question of law and where the suit is apparently found to be time barred, the Court is bound to reject the plaint, because that issue cannot be left unanswered and necessarily to be attended before proceeding any further. In such situation, learned Trial Court originally and learned Appellate Court below, at the most, should have resorted to the aforesaid provision to nip the bud at the inception, but both of them omitted to take its notice. When the suit filed by the petitioner along with his brother is found to be clearly time barred, this Court in exercise of visitorial/ corrective powers vested under revisional jurisdiction has no other option, but to reject its plaint. For the foregoing discussion, not only instant Civil Revision is dismissed confirming impugned unanimous orders of learned fora below, rather per mandate of o. VII r. 11 CPC, the plaint of suit is rejected as well.
0 Comments