2011 SCMR 808
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan and M. Javed Buttar, JJ
MUHAMMAD MISKEEN and others—Petitioners
Versus
NOOR MUHAMMAD and others—Respondents
Civil Review Petition No. 160 of 2008 in Civil Appeal No. 847 of 2005, decided on 9th July, 2009.
(On review from the judgment dated 26-9-2008 of this court passed in Civil Appeal No. 847 of 2005).
Constitution of Pakistan—
—-Art. 188—Review of Supreme Court judgment—Counsel for the petitioners had not been able to point out any error floating on the surface of the record of the impugned judgment sought to be reviewed, he had however, submitted that it was a case of extreme hardship—Contentions had been opposed—Supreme Court, however, in the interest of justice once again looked at the record and did not find any mistake/error or illegality in the judgment under review—Transaction of exchange, in the present case, was entered into in the year 1937; whereas the suit for declaration and possession was instituted on 26-3-1994—Transferor, the predecessor of the petitioners was aware of the transaction of exchange, he himself got entered mutation on 3-7-1937 which was attested in presence of both the parties on 8-6-1939—Transferor remained alive till 1990 but never brought any suit to challenge the validity of transfer made by him—Physical possession of the property had changed hands in 1939—Transferee remained alive till 1949 and predecessor of the petitioners remained satisfied and silent for 53 years despite the fact that a person from another village had throughout remained in physical possession of his previously owned property in the village, therefore, on the face of it, the suit instituted by the petitioners, who were legal heirs of the said transferor, on 26-3-1994, was hopelessly barred by time—Review petition was dismissed.
Zulfikar Khalid Maluka, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.
Gulzrin Kiyani, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.
ORDER
The petitioners are seeking review of our judgment dated 26-9-2008 whereby Civil Appeal No. 847 of 2005 instituted by the respondents was allowed, the judgment and decree dated 29-4-2005 of the Peshawar High Court was set aside and dated 4-10-2002 passed by District Judge, Haripur was restored and plaintiffs/petitioners’ suit was dismissed as hopelessly barred by time.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also seen the available record.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to point out any error floating on the surface of the record of the impugned judgment sought to be reviewed. He has however, submitted that it is a case of extreme hardship. The contentions have been opposed.
4. In the interest of justice, we have once again looked at the record and have not been able to find any mistake/error or illegality in our judgment dated 26-9-2008. The transaction of exchange was entered into in the year 1937; whereas the suit for declaration and possession was instituted on 26-3-1994. The transferor Miandad, the predecessor of the petitioners was aware of the transaction of exchange. He himself got entered Mutation No.2767 on 3-7-1937 which was attested in presence of both the parties on 8-6-1939. Miandad remained alive till 1990 but never brought any suit to challenge the validity of transfer made by him in favour of Fateh. The physical possession of the property had changed hands in 1939. Fateh remained alive till 1949. Miandad, the predecessor of the petitioners remained satisfied and silent for 53 years despite the fact that a person from another village namely Sirikot had throughout remained in physical possession of his previously owned property in village Sari. Therefore, on the face of it, the suit instituted by the petitioners, who are legal, heirs of the above said Miandad, on 26-3-1994, was hopelessly barred by time.
In view of the above mentioned, we find no merit in this petition which is dismissed with no order as to costs.
M.A.K./M-88/SC Petition dismissed.