Find a Lawyer

Civil Revision No. 128 of 1979, decided on 26th March, 1981.

Art. 14 and Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, r. 11‑Limita tion‑Order passed behind back of a person‑Art. 14, held, not applic able.‑(Natural justice, principle of].

Ghulam Muhammad v. Hafiz Ahmad P L D 1960 Lah. 1179; Muhammad Siddiq v. Punjab Province P L D 1958 Lah. 458 and I L R 24 Bom. 435 ref.

Maqbool Ahmad Khan for Petitioners.

Maroof Ali Khan for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 26th March, 1981.

This is a revision directed against the orders passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Sukkur on 12‑4‑1978 and the District Judge, Shikarpur on 11‑4‑1979 dismissing the Suit of the applicant under Order VII, rule 11, C. P. C. on the ground of limitation. The order of allotment of land in question was passed by the Settlement Authorities some time in 1962 or Suit in question had been filed on 26‑10‑1977. The plaintiff' in the plaint had submitted that the land belonged to them as having been inherited from their forefathers and it was never evacuee property and they were in cultivating possession of the same and they had received notice from the Mukhtiarkar of Ghariyasin issued on 11‑10‑1977, at the instance of respondent No. 3 and asking them to pay Batai to the respondent No. 3 as she had been allotted the suit land by the Settlement Authorities in 1962. The plaintiffs had also alleged that they bad come to know of this allotment only on the issue of that notice by the Mukhtiarkar.

2. The two Judges below have taken the view that the order in question was passed on 25‑7‑1962 and the suit was filed on 25‑10‑1977, viz. 15 years after the order, therefore, suit was barred by Article 14 of the Limitation Act. Article 14 of the Limitation Act reads as under :‑

"14. To set aside any act Time from which period begins

or order of an officer to run.

of Government in his

official capacity, not

herein otherwise

expressly provided for."

3. Mr. Maqbool Ahmed Khan for the appellants has relied upon P L D 1960 Lah. 1179, where Mr. Justice Shabbir Ahmad had held that Article 14 of the Limitation Act does not apply where the person aggrieved did not know of the order and that limitation starts when the person aggrieved comes to know of the order passed by the Public Officer.

4. Mr. Maroof Ali Khan has on the other hand relied upon P L D 1958 Lah. 458 where Mr. Justice Ortcheson had held that the limitation under Article 14 of the Limitation Act starts from the date of the order. However, it was also in that very case that Article 14 of Limitation Act is only applicable if the order passed is with jurisdiction and if the order was without jurisdiction or otherwise invalid. It does not require to be set aside and Article 14 will consequently not apply. Moreover, in that Lahore case reliance was placed upon I L R 24 Bom. 435, where Candi, J. made the following important observations :‑

"Lam not oppressed by the argument that if my view is correct, then a man may have an order passed against him behind his back, and yet he is allowed but one year from the date of the order within which to assert his right . . . . . . . . prima facie the order' in Article 14 must be an order which it is necessary that plaintiff should for the protection of his own rights, get set aside. But if the Article cannot apply to a given case, because it is possible to suppose such an order being passing a man's back, then it can never apply to any case whatever."

5. The last sentence of the quoted view makes it quite clear that if an order has been passed behind a person's back then Article 14 of the Limitation Act does not apply. In fact the preponderant view now is that Limitation Act dots not apply if an order has been passed behind the back of a person. In this view of the matter I would set aside the two orders made in this revision application and send the case back for decision, of the suit on merits.

6. I may note here that Mr. Maroof Ali Khan bad fairly conceded in the backing that he did not contest the competency of the suit, but he however contests the suit on the pleas raised by him in his written statement which he has filed in the lower Court, I am therefore, of the view that the suit has been wrongly dismissed on the point of limitation and it should be adjudicated on merits. Mr. Abbas Farooqi, Advocate has supported the respondent. But I did not agree with him for the reasons stated above.

7. The result is that this revision application is allowed and the two impugned orders of the lower Courts below dated 12‑4‑1978 and 1 1‑4‑1979 are hereby set aside and Suit No. 219/77 filed by Punhal and others is remanded back for disposal to the Civil Judge, Shikarpur, who is now competent to hear this suit, for disposal according to law after notice to the parties. R & P., if any may be sent back to Shikarpur with intimation to Senior Civil Judge, Sukkur.

M. Y. H. Application accepted.