2013 PLP 226 (YLR)
ALI AHMAD — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SIALKOT and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2013 PLP 226 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Rauf Ahmad Sheikh, J |
| Parties | ALI AHMAD — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SIALKOT and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Limitation Act (IX of 1908), (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2013 PLP 226 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Limitation Act (IX of 1908), (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2013 PLP 226 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Rauf Ahmad Sheikh, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2013 PLP 226 (YLR) (ALI AHMAD — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SIALKOT and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S.M. Zulqarnain Bukhari for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 181--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.48
Defendant (petitioner) had assailed orders passed by both the courts below, whereby, his objection petition seeking dismissal of the execution petition on ground of being time-barred, was disallowed
Contention of defendant (petitioner) that decree-holder (respondents) filed execution petition on 16-6-2006 seeking execution of decree dated 14-10-1981, which was barred by time
Decree was passed by Trial Court on 14-10-1981 and first and regular second appeal filed by defendant before the High Court were dismissed on 27-11-1984 and 30-10-2001 respectively
Defendant, against the order of High Court, filed petition for leave to appeal before Supreme Court, which was dismissed on 20-12-2009
Article 181, First Schedule, Limitation Act, 1908, prescribed period of three years for execution petition while section 48 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 provided outer limit of six years for every subsequent execution petition
Petition for leave to appeal, filed by defendant, remained pending before the Supreme Court and was dismissed on 20-12-2006. Since matter was pending in the Supreme Court, executing court had lawfully exercised jurisdiction to entertain the execution petition and dismissed the objection petition
Court below had also rightly dismissed the appeal for valid reasons by holding that execution petition was not time-barred as the matter remained sub judice before the Supreme Court till 22-10-2006
No illegality or irregularity having been committed by both the courts below, revision petition was dismissed.
O.XXI & S. 48
Decree-holder who remains successful up to the Supreme Court cannot be deprived of the fruits of the decree merely because he did not seek execution during pendency of the petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court.
Judgment & Decree
RAUF AHMAD SHEIKH, J.
The arguments have been heard at length. The petitioner has assailed the vires of order dated 2-1-2009 passed by learned Executing Court and order dated 19-4-2010, passed by learned ADJ, whereby his objection petition seeking dismissal of the execution petition on the ground that the same was barred by time, was disallowed. It is contended that the decree was passed by the Civil Judge on 14-10-1981. The first appeal preferred by him was dismissed on 27-11-1984. He filed R.S.A. No.291 of 1984 before this Court, which was dismissed on 30-10-2001 and against the said judgment and decree of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, he filed CPLA before the august Supreme Court of Pakistan, which was dismissed, on 20-12-2009. It is contended that the respondents filed execution petition on 16-6-2006 seeking execution of decree dated 14-10-1981 as confirmed by this Court through judgment dated 30-10-2001, which was barred by time. This aspect was agitated through objection petition, which has illegally been rejected:
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the first execution petition falls under Article 181 of the 1st Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1908 which provides a period of three years from the date of accruing of the right and as the instant execution petition was filed on 16-6-2006, so the same is hopelessly barred by time.
3. It is true that after repeal of Article 182 of the Limitation Act, the period prescribed for execution petition is three years under Article 181 of the Limitation Act. Section 48, C.P.C. provides the outer limit of six years for every subsequent execution petition but there was an important aspect as rightly noticed by learned executing Court and the learned A.D.J. The CPLA was filed by the petitioner, which remained pending before the august Supreme Court of Pakistan and was dismissed on 20-12-2006. As the matter was pending in the august Supreme Court of Pakistan, so the learned executing Court lawfully exercised jurisdiction to entertain the execution petition and dismissed the objection petition. The learned ADJ also dismissed the appeal for valid reasons by holding that the execution petition was not barred by time as the matter remained sub judice before the august Court till 22-12-2006. Above all, the decree holder who remained successful upto the Apex Court cannot be deprived of the fruits of the decreee merely because he did not seek execution during pendency of the CPLA before the august Supreme Court of Pakistan. No illegality or irregularity has been committed by both the learned courts. For the reasons supra, the civil revision is without merits and the same is hereby dismissed in limine. MWA/A-145/L Revision dismissed.