Law: Limitation Act (IX of 1908)

Section: 1,10

Limitation Act (IX of 1908)-------First Sched. & Art. 10---Pre-emption right---Limitation---Concurrent findings of facts by two Courts below---Suit for recovery of possession on the basis of preemption filed by petitioner/plaintiff was dismissed by Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court concurrently as the same was barred by limitation---Validity---Suit was filed several months after the lapse of one year period to be reckoned with reference to the date of registration of deed---Such suit was barred under Art. 10 of First Schedule to Limitation Act, 1908---High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction declined to interfere in judgments passed by two Courts below on the point of limitation, as there was no illegality or material irregularity---Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.Khushi Muhammad v. Abdul Shakoor 1987 SCMR 1473 and Mst. Zubeda Begum v. Allah Ditta 1986 CLC 855 rel.ORDERYOUSUF ALI SAYEED, J.---The instant Revision questions the concurrent findings recorded against the Applicant in terms of the Judgment of the 1st Civil Judge Pano Aqil dated 21.04.2009 in Civil Suit No. 19 of 2008 (the "Underlying Suit"), as upheld by the Additional District Judge (Hudood) Sukkur in Appeal No. 96/2011 (the "Subject Appeal") vide Judgment dated 18.01.2019.2.    The facts and circumstances underpinning the dispute inter se the parties are duly encapsulated in depth in the Appellate Judgment and it would serve no useful purpose to burden the record by reiterating the same in detail. Suffice to say that the Underlying Suit was brought by the Applicant as against the Respondent in exercise of a professed right of pre-emption, which proceeded through evidence and eventually came to be dismissed at the stage of final arguments, principally on the point of maintainability, being barred by limitation. Thereafter, Appeal No. Nil of 2009 was apparently filed by the Applicant was dismissed in limini. Being aggrieved the Applicant filed Civil Revision No. S-87 of 2009, which was disposed of by this Court vide Order dated 21.10.2011; whereby the matter was remanded to the extent of the appellate forum for determination afresh after framing points…