1999 PLP 1432 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD ILYAS and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1999 PLP 1432 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ILYAS and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD and others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP 1432 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1999 PLP 1432 (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: 1999 PLP 1432 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD ILYAS and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Malik Abdul Wahid Chaudhary for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents..
Headnotes / Summary
S.48
Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 181
First execution application could be moved within a period of three years from the date of preparation of decree
Period for filing second execution application was six years to be counted from the date of the dismissal of the first execution application.
Judgment & Decree
Malik Abdul Wahid Chaudhary for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents.. 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. It appears that the decree-sheet was so 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, the 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/their predessors-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 moved within a period of three years from the date of preparation of 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 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 H.B.T./M-674/L Revision accepted.