Law: Limitation Act, 1908

Section: IX,1,91,120

Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)

Section: 75,76

Law: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)

Section: 12,39,42,55

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 100,VII,11

(a)    Limitation Act (IX of 1908)-------First Sched., Arts. 91 & 120---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 75 & 76---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss, 12, 39, 42 & 55---Civil Procedure Code (V of1908), S.100---Second Appeal---Allotment of plot in Government Employees Housing Society---Execution of lease deeds in favour of two members qua one plot---Suit for declaration, cancellation, possession, injunction and damages filed by the appellant was dismissed on two counts i.e. filing of photocopies of documents and limitation---Appellant preferred an appeal, which was also dismissed on the same technical counts despite the fact that certified copies of the documents had been filed---Validity---Claim of the appellant had been declined on the point of limitation not only by believing the document, the genuineness of which he had challenged on the ground of fraud but also by not believing certified true copies of the documents, which he was allowed to file by the appellate court itself in order to defeat the observations of the Trial Court against him on filing of the photostat copies thereof---When the validity of the document in its entirety was challenged on the ground of being false and fabricated, then the date of its execution would not be taken up as a reference for determining limitation period for filing the suit against it in absence of a thorough enquiry by the Trial Court to determine its exactness first---Appellant was not aware of document challenged by him since its execution, or that the date of its execution was correct but contents had been distorted or manipulated, to make the date of execution as a reference point to decide limitation of the case---Plaintiff in his plaint asserted that he came to know of such manipulation in 2011 and he challenged it by filing the suit in 2013 i.e. within three years---Respondents had failed to pursue their case before the Trial Court and did not file any written statement to support their point of view---In absence of any evidence contradicting claim of the plaintiff about getting knowledge of the questioned document in 2011, there was no material before the courts to come to a…