Find a Lawyer

Civil Revision No323 of 1984, decided on 26th June, 1984.

‑‑‑O.XLI, r.23‑‑Rejection of plaint as time‑barred‑‑Case remanded on appeal to trial Court for disposal according to law‑‑Remand order challenged in revision‑‑Order being appealable under O.XLIII, r.l(4), C . P . C . , revision, held, not entertainable.

‑‑‑O.VII, r.11(d)‑‑Rejection of plaint as time‑barred‑‑Trial Court having taken into consideration material foreign to plaint‑‑Order set aside in appeal‑‑Appellate Court's order affirmed in revision by High Court.

Malik Muhammad Aslam for Petitioners.

On 22‑9‑1980 Kabir respondents and others filed suit against Noor Ahmad and others, the appellants for declaration to the effect that they were owner in occupation of disputed property. Before written statement could be filed, the defendant moved application for the rejection of plaint Under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. on the ground that the suit as barred by time. The application was resisted. The trial Court, however, rejected the plaint as barred by time vide its judgment and decree dated 17‑3‑1981. On appeal filed by Kabir and others, respondents/ defendants, the learned District Judge vide order dated 28‑3‑1984 set aside the impugned judgment and decree of the trial court and remanded the case to the trial Court for disposal according to law. This order of the learned District Judge has been challenged through this revision which was filed of 21‑6‑1984.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that since the suit was filed after about 95 years of the wrong entry made in Revenue Record, therefore, the suit was hopelessly barred by time and the plaint was rightly rejected by the trial Court:

3. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel with care. I feel inclined to dismiss the petition in limine on the ground that the learned District Judge has remanded the case under Order XLI, rule 23, C.P.C., therefore, that order being appealable under Order XLIII, (u)(m), C.P.C., the revision filed by the petitioner is not entertainable. Even otherwise, the learned District Judge has rightly set aside the order of the trial Court whereby the plaint was rejected because the trial Court had taken into consideration material foreign to the plaint. In pare No.22‑23 of the plaint, the plaintiffs/ respondents have disclosed the cause of action for the purpose of limitation. It has been stated;

< --[if gte vml 1]> < [endif]-->

In this view of the matter, I am convinced that the facts given in the plaint taken to be correct, it, cannot be said that the suit was barred by time.

4. For what has been stated above, it is not a fit case for interference with the impugned order of the learned District Judge in exercise of revisional powers of this Court. Dismissed in limine.

H.A. Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.