Law: Limitation Act (IX of 1908)

Section:

Limitation Act (IX of 1908)-----   ----S. 5-Admission of appeal after period of limitation-Sufficient cause-Every case to be judged on merits-Party bona fide presenting appeal to wrong Court --Fit case for extending benefit of section 5.   A I R 1933 Lah. 568 and P L D 1959 Azad J & K 55 distinguished.   P L D 1960 Lah. 427 rel.   AIR 1917 PC 156 ref.   JUDGMENT   ABDUL HAMID KHAN, J.-Brief facts giving rise to this appeal may be stated as under:-   Muhammad Ayub appellant and his brother Ghulam Mohi ud-Din deceased had filed a suit for possession of land measuring 29 kanals 7 marlas situate in village Ankar, Tehsil Mirpur in the Court of the Sub-Judge, Mirpur against Sain Dass, Chet Ram (now evacuees), Sajawal Khan, Sardar and Abbas Ali. It was alleged by them that they were the occupancy tenants of the land of which Sain Dass defendant No. 1 was the proprietor. It may be mentioned here that Sain Dass had got the plaintiffs ejected in the Dogra time and this ejectment was challenged by the plaintiffs in the Civil Court and a decree was passed in favour of the plaintiffs which was maintained even in appeal by the High Court.   In pursuance of this decree the plaintiffs were put in possession of the land but the mutation in the revenue papers had not yet been entered and attested in the names of the plaintiffs when the War of Liberation broke out. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 (Sain Dass and Chet Ram) migrated to India and the defendants Nos. 3 to 5 forcibly entered upon the land and ejected the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs sought their remedy in the Local Revenue Courts but failed. They, therefore, lodged a suit in the Civil Court. The defendants Nos. 3 to 5 contested the suit on the ground that they were in possession of the suit land since the Dogra time ; and that their possession was not adverse. They also pleaded that a portion of the suit land was purchased by them while the rest was in their possession as occupancy tenants. The trial Court framed 5 issues in the case and started recording the evidence of the parties but after the statement of only one witness of the plaintiffs had been recorded when on 8-12-1959 an…