Law:

Section:

On 29-6-1982 the petitioners filed a suit against the respondent. In the plaint it was stated that the suit-land was confirmed in favour of respondent who agreed to sell to the petitioners for a consideration of Rs.11,660; that a sum of Rs.1,500 was paid as earnest money and an agreement was executed on 6-3-1963 which was registered and possession was delivered; that on 10-7-1963 a further sum of Rs.2,693 was paid in terms of the agreement while amount due to the Government by way of price of land was also paid by the petitioners; that a week ago the petitioners acquired the knowledge that the proprietary rights have been conferred upon the respondent by means of Mutation No.215 attested on 4-5-1977 but the same was kept secret. With these averments the petitioners sought a decree for specific performance of the said agreement, dated 6-7-1963. The respondent in his written statement objected that the suit is barred by time; that the agreement is illegal. On merits it was stated that since the respondent was not owner of the property on the date of agreement he was not competent to enter into same and if some agreement has been fabricated the same is illegal, void and result of fraud. Issues were framed by the learned trial Court relevant being Issue No. 1 which is as follows:--   "Whether the suit is barred by time? OPD"   Evidence of the parties was recorded. Learned trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 30-4-1991. A first appeal filed by the respondent was heard by a learned Additional District Judge, Sheikhupura, who, while holding that the agreement was executed by the respondent and performed by the petitioners, as alleged, reversed finding of the learned trial Court on the said Issue No. 1 and held that the suit is barred by time. Consequently, the appeal was allowed on 27-9-1995 with the result that the suit filed by the petitioners was dismissed.   Syed Muhammad Kaleem Ahmad Khurshid, learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the learned Additional District Judge has acted with material irregularity in exercise of his jurisdiction inasmuch as he has proceeded to hold the suit to be barred by time, by…