Law: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)

Section: 42, 54

Law: Limitation Act (IX of 1908)

Section: 14

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 115

Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) Ss. 42 & 54---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), First Sched., Art. 14---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115---Suit for declaration and injunction---Concurrent findings of facts by two Courts below---Setting aside of any act or order of government functionaries---Limitation---Petitioner/plaintiff assailed Permanent Transfer Deed (PTD) issued in favour of respondent/defendant claiming to be owner of suit property---Suit and appeal filed by petitioner/plaintiff was dismissed by Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court---Vaidity---Period of limitation, as per Art. 14 of First Sched., to Limitation Act, 1908, for instituting a suit to set aside any act or order of an officer of Government made by him in his official capacity is one year from the date of the act or order---Period of limitation is six years under residuary Art. 120 of First Sched., to Limitation Act, 1908---Whichever of the two periods was applied, the suit of petitioner/plaintiff having been instituted on 27-02-1979 to challenge Permanent Transfer Deed dated 22-05-1965 was badly barred by the law of limitation---Petitioner/ plaintiff failed to demonstrate before High Court any misreading or non-reading of evidence, or to point out any material illegality or irregularity committed by the Courts below---Oral and documentary evidence produced by the parties was duly appreciated in accordance with law and suit of petitioner/plaintiff was rightly dismissed---High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under S.115, C.P.C could not disturb concurrent findings on facts when the same did not suffer not misreading and non-reading of evidence, howsoever erroneous---High Court declined to interfere in judgments and decrees passed by two Courts below as there was no illegality, infirmity, or jurisdictional defect and findings of Courts below were well-reasoned and in consonance with law---Revision was dismissed in circumstances.        Syed Abdur Rashid v. Pakistan through the Secretary, Ministry of Refugees and Rehabilitation, Karachi and others PLD 1962 SC 42; Abdul Karim v. Sh. Muhammad Rafique, Settlement Commissioner with Powers of Chief…