IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH
BENCH AT SUKKUR
Civil Rev. Application No.S-209
of 2010
|
Date |
Order with signature of Judge |
For
hearing of main case.
Mr. Mushtaque Ahmed Shahani, Advocate
for applicants.
Mr. Abdul Waheed Bhambhro holding
brief on behalf of
Mr. Ashok Kumar K.Jamba, Advocate for
respondents No.1 & 2.
Date of
hearing: 02.10.2019
J U D G M E N T
NAZAR AKBAR
J:-The
applicants/plaintiffs have filed instant Civil Revision Application against the
concurrent findings of the two courts below.
2.
The brief facts relevant for
disposal of instant Civil Revision Application are that the applicants/plaintiffs
have filed a suit bearing FC Suit No.47/2010 for declaration, possession and
permanent injunction against the respondents/defendants stating therein that
the applicants/plaintiffs namely Allah Bux and others are owner of property
bearing CS No.608/1 situated at KumbharMuhalla Sukkur, (the suit property) by
inheritance as legal heirs of real owner Wahid Bux. Their father in his
lifetime had rented out the suit property to respondent/defendant No.1 at the
rate of Rs.400/- P.M and rent was received by their father.The applicants/plaintiffs
after death of their father approached respondent/defendant No.1 for execution
of fresh rent agreement but he refused and also stopped payment of rent. It is
stated that applicants/plaintiffs filed Rent Application No.2/1992 in the Court
of I-Rent Controller/Senior Civil Judge Sukkur but during pendency of the rent
application respondent /defendant No.1 malafidely settled the dispute with the
applicants/plaintiffs outside the Court and started to pay the rent to the
applicants/plaintiffs at the rate of Rs.400/- P.M and at the same time
respondents secretly and malafidely pursued the rent application and got
judgment against the applicants/plaintiffs on bogus and arranged sale
agreement. It is stated that respondent/defendant No.1 paid the rent to the
applicants/plaintiffs up to the month of March 2005, thereafter stopped
the payment of rent. Applicants/plaintiffs filed another rent application
No.52/2007 before the court of I-Rent Controller/Senior Civil Judge Sukkur
but later on applicants/plaintiffs withdrew the said rent application in order
to file suit for possession against the respondents/defendants. It is stated
that respondent/defendant No.1 has also
handed over some portion of the said premises to respondent/defendant No.2
without consent of applicants/plaintiffs Thereafter applicants/plaintiffs filed
FC Suit No.47/2010 against the respondents/defendants.
3. Respondents/defendants filed written
statement and also an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC which was
allowed and plaint was rejected by learned Civil Judge Sukkur by order dated 16.04.2010being
barred by law of limitation. The applicants/plaintiffs being aggrieved and
dis-satisfied by that order filed appeal No.50/2010before the learned
Vth Additional District Judge Sukkur which was dismissed by order dated 27.08.2010,
hence applicants/plaintiffs have filed instant revision application.
4. I
have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Learned
counsel for the applicants could not dispute the record discussed by the two
courts below for coming to the conclusion that after the notice of the fact
that the Respondent is clearing possession of the suit property adverse to the
interest of the applicants, the applicants remained silent for seeking recovery
of possession beyond the period of 15 years. Both the Courts below have very
elaborately discussed the fact that the Respondents were put in possession by
the predecessor-in-interest of the applicants under a written agreement of sale
dated 26.2.1990. The Respondents have relied on this agreement in the
very first rent application for their ejectment filed by applicants bearing
Rent Application No.02/1992. Consequently the relationship of landlord and
tenant was not established when the rent case instituted by the applicants was
dismissed for want of jurisdiction way back on 08.12.1993. The
applicants never showed their grievance against dismissal of their rent case
and after more than 15 years they filed another rent case bearing No.52/2007
before the same Rent Controller and subsequently they withdrew the same on the
ground that they wish to file a suit for possession. Thenthey filed civil suit
in November, 2007 bearing Suit No.72/2007 which was later on
renumbered as suit No.47/2010 and the plaint was rejected by order dated
16.4.2010 on the ground of limitation. Both the Courts below have
observed that the limitation for filing the suit for possession has started on
the dismissal of first rent application by order dated 08.12.1993. The
two Courts below have relied on the Article 144 of the Limitation Act
which prescribes 12 years long period as limitation for seeking possession of
an immovable property or any interest therein from the date when possession of
the defendant became adverse to the interest of the plaintiff. From 08.12.1993
the period of 12 years has completed on 07.12.2005 and the suit for
possession has been filed in November, 2007 therefore, the suit was rightly
held to be barred by limitation. Both the Courts have also relied on the
judgments of superior Court in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has emphatically
decided the question of limitation to be examined by Courts as their paramount duty
for entertaining a suit and it has been repeatedly observed that the Courts have
no jurisdiction to entertain a claim of a party which is time barred.
6. In
view of the above, instant Revision Application was dismissed by short order
dated 02.10.2019 and above are the reasons for the same.
JUDGE