Find a Lawyer

Civil Revision No. 2171-D of 1985, decided on 22nd December, 1986.

---S.115--Revisional jurisdiction, exercise of--Judgment passed by Appellate Court being well-founded on evidence on record, held, could not be interfered with by High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction when no misreading or non-reading of evidence by Court below had been pointed out.

----S.10--Settlement Scheme No. I, para. 38--Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art.14--Transfer of evacuee property--Order of Settlement Authority-- Declaratory suit against--Limitation for--Period of limitation for filing civil suit against order of Settlement Authorities having been prescribed one year under Art. 14 of Limitation Act, 1908, suit filed against such order after expiry of more than six years held, was barred by time even if suit was a declaratory one.

Sher Afzal Khan and others v. Haji Razi Abdullah and others 1984 S C M R 228 and Munir Ahmad etc. v. Noor Muhammad 1982 SCMR 1038 ref.

Sh. Khalil-ur-Rehman for Petitioner.

After a protracted litigation with regard to an erstwhile evacuee property bearing No. P.127, Ward No. 8, Montgomery Bazar, Faisalabad, in the result whereof judgment was passed on 17-12-1968 in L.P.A. No. 442 of 1965 to uphold the order dated 4-12-1959 passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner by striking down the appellate and revisional orders passed there against. By the said order Deputy Settlement Commissioner had transferred four rooms in the upper portion of the property in favour of Mst. Bashiran Begum and seven rooms thereof were transferred to Mehr Din and, even after the said judgment of the L.P.A., had been upheld by the Supreme Court in C.P.S.L.A. No. 150 of 1969, filed by Muhammad Hussain respondent No.l who was not in direct contest for transfer of the property at that stage; Mst. Bashiran Begum filed a suit on 21-4-1982 for possession with regard to a godown in the said property by claiming that the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, dated 28-11-1975, as also the orders and proceedings connected therewith, are liable to be set aside. She tried to confuse the identity of this godown with another one which had been transferred to one Muhammad Din who had surrendered it in favour of Mehr Din who, in turn, had surrendered it in her favour. The suit was contested on a number of pleas and apart from issue No.3 with regard to limitation, the principal issue set down for trial was as under:-

"Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the property in dispute and entitled to its possession and the order of D.S.C., dated 28-11-1975 is illegal, void and inoperative against her rights as being without lawful authority and jurisdiction "

Voluminous evidence was led by the parties from the settlement record, including also the judgments passed at different levels with regard to entitlement and transfer of the property. Learned- Civil Judge upheld her claim and decreed the suit on 14-4-1985.

2. The defendant-respondents Nos.l to 4 herein, maintained an appeal there against which was heard by a learned Additional District Judge, who, relying on the statement made by the plaintiff as P.W.1, wherein she had admitted that she had sold out one godown for Rs.1,35,000 concluded that the godown transferred to her by her father Mehr Din was the one that she had already sold and her claim to the godown now in suit was baseless. He referred to the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, dated 4-12-1959 (Exh. P.6) and concluded that the godown in suit had not been transferred to anyone and that since she was the transferee of the four rooms in the upper portion, therefore, her claim to the godown was untenable. For the very same reason he also held that a civil suit, in such a matter as rests in the exclusive jurisdiction of the Settlement Authorities, is not competent and placed reliance on Sher Afzal Khan and others v. Haji Razi Abdullah and others (1984 S C M R 228) and Munir Ahmad, etc. v. Noor Muhammad (1982 S C M R 1038). Learned Additional District Judge also attended to the obvious inconsistency in her claim for possession of the godown maintained by simultaneously asserting in para. 8 of the plaint that she is in possession thereof. In this state of the matter, he regarded her suit to be really declaratory in nature and concluded that it was barred by time under Article 120 of the Limitation Act in so far as it was filed on 21-4-1982 to assail the order dated 2-11-1975, after the expiry of six years four months and four days of the passage thereof. In consequence, he accepted the appeal on 3-7-1985 and dismissed her suit. There had crept in certain typographical errors in his judgment, which, he later corrected in exercise of his powers under sections 152 and 153 of the C.P.C. by means of his order dated 3-7-1985. The plaintiff Mst. Bashiran Begum has now come up to this Court on revision against the appellate judgment and decree of dismissal of her suit.

3. Record was requisitioned to verify the contention of the learned counsel that judgment of the learned Additional District Judge was the result of inadequate perusal of record and non-application of mind. It has been received and perused but no misreading or non-reading of evidence has been pointed out by the learned counsel. Judgment passed in the appeal below to conclude absence of title in the plaintiff with regard to the godown in suit is well-founded on the record. The only order with regard to her title which has survived the lengthy litigation is Exh. P.6 dated 4-12-1959 passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner and thereby she was not invested with any title in the godown in suit. It is clear that to lay a false claim to this godown, she has attempted to confuse its identity with the one which had been surrendered in her favour by her father and the inescapable conclusion from her statement made as P.W.1 is that she has already sold that godown. There is no substance in the contention of the learned counsel which is accordingly repelled.

4. It may be observed also that the suit of the petitioner was undoubtedly barred by time under Article 14 of the Limitation Act in so far as it related to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner's order dated 2-11-1975 in so far as against a limitation of one year provided thereunder the suit had been filed after more than six years arid was, no doubt, barred even as a declaratory suit.

5. There does not emerge any case for exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Hence, dismissed in limine.

H.B.T./B-11/L Revision 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.