1989SCMR763 (PLP)

NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑This order will dispose of Civil Petition No. 1121 of 1988 and Civil Petition No. 1122 of 1988, as they arise from a common judgment of the Lahore High Court passed in Civil Revisions Nos. 2443/D/85 and 2444/D/85. The petitioners in both these matters are vendees. Separate suits were filed against them by the respondents claiming that they being collaterals had a preferential right to the sale. The suits were decreed and the appeals filed against the decrees and judgments before the Additional District Judge failed, as also the revision petitions filed in the High Court. Hence these petitions for leave to appeal. It is not denied that the respondents have a preferential right and the only ground on which the decrees and judgements of the Courts below are attacked is that the suits were filed out of time and were barred by limitation. It appears that the ground that the suit was barred by limitation was taken in only one of the suits, namely, Civil Suit No. 628 of 1979/250 of 1984 (wherein Civil Revision No. 2444/13 of 1985 was. filed and is now the subject matter of Civil Petition No. 1122 of 1988). The objection gave rise to an issue (Issue No. 5) and it was dealt with in the judgment of the learned trial Court as follows: "Issue No. 5 (Time‑barred): It is alleged by the defendants that the suit of the plaintiffs is barred by time because the sale‑deed was attested on 11‑6‑1978 and the present suit was filed on 14‑6‑1979, hence barred by time. I have gone through the original sale‑deed Exh. D.

1. The sale‑deed reveals that it was registered on 18‑6‑1978, hence the suit filed on 14‑6‑1979 is within time, because' the limitation is to be counted from the date when it was registered. This issue is so decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants:' This question does not appear to have been agitated any further because no reference is to be found to it either in the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge or in that of the High Court. In these circumstances, we would not like to examine this matter in this Court at this stage. Even otherwise the view of the learned trial Court seems to be correct. So far as the other suit namely Civil Suit No. 632 of 1979, which is A subject‑matter of Civil Petition No. 1121 of 1988 is concerned, no issue at all was raised in the trial Court with regard to it and no reference is made to this aspect of the matter in the Courts below. The petitioner cannot be allowed to agitate this matter therefore for the first time before this Court when it was not pressed before any of the Courts below. The upshot is that there is no force in either of these petitions which, accordingly, fail and are dismissed hereby. AA./A‑410/S Petitions dismissed.