2010 PLP 532 (CLC)

FAISAL ARAB, J.

The applicant filed the suit and the plaint was rejected under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. The applicant then preferred appeal which too was dismissed and the present revision application arises from such order of dismissal dated 26-5-2008. The learned counsel for the respondents, at the very outset submits that the present revision application is barred by time. In response to this contention, the learned counsel for the applicant has admitted that this revision application is barred by 67' days, yet he has argued that where the judgment is a nullity, the bar of limitation would not come in the way to file present proceedings. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the cases of Karachi Development Authority v. Mst. Unsiat Begum reported in 1999 YLR 1160 (Karachi) and Mst. Reeta v. Government of Sindh and others reported in 2001 CLC 1825. It is an established principle of law that an order or judgment is to be treated as void only when it is made by a Court, Tribunal or an Authority, which has no jurisdiction either as regards the subject-matter or the pecuniary vale or the territorial limits. In case any legal proceedings are entertained in spite of such legal defect then an order or judgment would amount to usurpation of power and it would be a nullity. On the other hand where an order is passed by a Court, Tribunal or an Authority having requisite jurisdiction .then such an order or judgment could not be regarded as a nullity, though on its merits it may be such that it could be set aside in appeal, revision or review. This has been held by the honourable Supreme Court in the .case of Chief Settlement Commissioner, Lahore v. Muhammad Fazil Khan reported in PLD 1975 SC

331. It is admitted position that the suit was filed by the applicant himself and the Court which has rejected the plaint had the jurisdiction to pass such an order. The applicant preferred appeal which was also dismissed. Thus, there is no jurisdictional defect in any of the orders of the courts below. As the Court which rejected the plaint had the jurisdiction to decide, it cannot be said that the order that was passed was nullity and void though it may be true that on some principle of law that order on merits could have been reversed or set aside but for that the proceedings to impugn such order are to be initiated within the period of limitation. prescribed under the law. The purpose and object of enacting the law of limitation for any type of legal proceedings is twofold. Firstly, to shut the doors of litigation on an aggrieved party after a controversy has reached a certain age, though it has remained unsettled and had never been taken to a Court of law for decision. Secondly, to accord finality to a decision of a Court of law of appropriate jurisdiction, once the period for challenging it before a higher legal forum has gone by. This is irrespective of the fact that the Court whose decision has attained finality stands at the lowest tier. This finality, which is accorded by the law of limitation to a controversy or a decision of Court of law, remains irrespective of the fact that an aggrieved party is otherwise able to demonstrate that it has a valid case on merits. Whole idea behind enacting law of limitation is that let there be 'end to litigation no matter any party may be unduly benefited on account of application of bar of limitation. A litigant therefore has to first successfully cross the, hurdle of limitation and only thereafter the merits of the case are to be examined by a Court of law. If this object of law of limitation is overlooked then this would amount to ignoring the very purpose for which the law of limitation was enacted. In the circumstances, whether the order was sustainable in law on merits, since it was not a nullity or void order, such an order upon attaining finality would bear legal consequence and shall be enforceable on account of failure of applicant not to prefer this revision within prescribed time. This revision application is therefore dismissed, being barred by time, along with the listed application. M.H./A-5/K Revision dismissed.