1998 PLP 1600 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD ILYAS and 4 others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD and another — Respondents
| Citation | 1998 PLP 1600 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ILYAS and 4 others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD and another — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 1600 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 1600 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 1600 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD ILYAS and 4 others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Malik Abdul Wahid for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 15
Civil Procedure Code (V of 19081, S. 48
Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 181
Decree-sheet was admittedly drawn on 8-2-1983
First execution application was filed within three years from date of preparation of decree in terms of Art. 181, Limitation Act, 1908
Such application having been dismissed second execution application was moved on 28-7-1988 i.e. well within period of six years from the date of dismissal of first execution application
Second execution application having been filed within specified period in terms of S. 48, Civil Procedure Code, was within time, therefore, same could not have been dismissed
Dismissal of second application for execution of decree by Courts below was not warranted-- Impugned orders of Courts below were set aside and case was remanded to Executing Court for proceeding further with the same in accordance with law.
Judgment & Decree
Malik Abdul Wahid for Petitioners. Date of hearing: 15th October, 1997. Karim Bakhsh, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners filed a pre-emption suit against the respondents which was decreed on 20-11-1975. 1t appears that the decree sheet was not drawn at that time and it is only as late as on 8-2-1983 that it was so prepared. An execution application was moved by the petitioners on 30-4-1983 but it was dismissed on 2-4-1984. Second execution petition was moved on 28-7-1988 which was objected to by the respondents judgment-debtors as being time-barred. The learned Civil Judge vide order dated 30-1-1991 dismissed the execution application on the ground of limitation.
2. Feeling aggrieved, (he petitioners filed an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ferozewala, on 12-10-1996. Hence this revision petition.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the two learned Courts below have erred in law in dismissing the execution application on the erroneous consideration that the same was hit by limitation. According to him, the decree sheet was not prepared by the trial Court inadvertently at the time of pronouncement of the judgment whereunder the suit was decreed and therefore, the petitioners/and their predecessor-in-interest were not able to move the execution application on the basis of the judgment alone. According to him, the execution application moved in 1988 was withdrawn by them.
4. I find merit in this revision petition. The decree sheet, admittedly, was drawn on 8-2-1983. First execution application could be legally moved within a period of three years from the date of the preparation of the decree in terms of Article 181 of Limitation Act, 1908. It is not denied that the first application was moved on 30-4-1983. It is, therefore, immaterial, for the purposes of determination of question of limitation that it was dismissed on 2-4-1984. Second execution application moved on 28-7-1988 could not be dismissed as barred by time as the period for filing the second execution application was six years, to be counted from the date of the dismissal of the first execution application. See "Mahboob Khan v. Hassan Khan Durrani" (PLD 1990 SC 778) and "Mirza Akbar Ali v. National Bank of Pakistan" (1985 SCMR 190).
5. Resultantly, for what has been stated above, this revision petition is accepted and after setting aside the two orders passed by learned Civil Judge dated 30-1-1991 and 12-10-1996 passed by learned Additional District Judge, respectively, the matter is remitted to the learned Civil Judge/Executing Court to proceed further with second execution application of the petitioner in accordance with law. No costs. A.A./M-650/L Revision accepted