| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLG 4591 = 2026 SLD 4591 = 2026 PLJ 415 |
Supreme Appellate Court, Pakistan
C.P.L.A. No. 1086 of 2019
Presented By: Shahid Bilal Hassan and Shakeel Ahmad JUDGE
Mr. Qaiser Imran, ASC for Petitioners. Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Abbasi, ASC (for LRs. of
Respondent No. 1) Nemo for LRs. of
Respondent No. 2, 33 and other
Respondents. Mirza Muhammad Usman, State Counsel and Ali Javed, Tehsildar & Saghir Patwari On Court’s Notice. Date of hearing: 8.4.2026.
C.P.L.A. No. 1086 of 2019
Presented By: Shahid Bilal Hassan and Shakeel Ahmad JUDGE
Mr. Qaiser Imran, ASC for Petitioners. Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Abbasi, ASC (for LRs. of
Respondent No. 1) Nemo for LRs. of
Respondent No. 2, 33 and other
Respondents. Mirza Muhammad Usman, State Counsel and Ali Javed, Tehsildar & Saghir Patwari On Court’s Notice. Date of hearing: 8.4.2026.
NADEEM AKHTAR (deceased) through LRs and others--Petitioners
VERSUS
MANZOOR AHMAD (deceased) through LRs and others--Respondents
Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877
Section: 42 , 54
Law: Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Section: 115
Law: Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967
Section: 172(2)(ii)
Specific Relief Act, 1877 (I of 1877)-- ----Ss. 42 & 54--Land Revenue Act, 1967 (XVII of 1967), S. 172--Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908), S. 115--Suit for declaration and permanent injunction--Decreed--Appeals--Dismissed--Civil revision--Dismissed--Time-barred--Long standing revenue entry--Misal haqiat of 1956-57--Owner/co-sharer-Subsequent alteration/ correction reduced share--Jurisdiction of Civil Courts--Unexplained delay challenging revenue record--Maintainability of suit--Law is settled that unexplained delay in challenging mutations or revenue entries renderd claim legally untenable--It was observed that statutes of limitation are statutes of peace and repose, and stale claims could not be permitted to disturb settled affairs--In present case, plaintiff founded his claim upon entries of 1956-57 and sought to unsettle subsequent entries after prolonged inaction--Such dormant claims could not have been entertained by Courts below--It is settled that in determining jurisdiction, Court might look to real nature of controversy rather than drafting ingenuity of plaint or nomenclature of relief claimed--A party could not, by couching a barred claim in language of declaration and injunction, confer jurisdiction upon a Civil Court where statute expressly excluded it--Where a claimant stept over his alleged rights and allows others to deal with property openly and for long periods, law of limitation acquired decisive significance, especially once third-party interests have come into existence--Appeal allowed. [Pp. 418, 419, 420 & 421] A, B, C & F Land Revenue Act, 1967 (XVII of 1967)-- ----S. 172(2)(ii)--Bar on jurisdiction of Civil Courts regarding correction of revenue record--Section 172(2)(vii) specifically bars Civil Court’s jurisdiction regarding “the correction of any entry in a record-of-rights, periodical record or register of…