P L D 1975 Karachi 688 (PLP)
NURUDDIN-Appellant Versus GHULAM MUSTAFA-Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1975 Karachi 688 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Agha Ali Hyder, J |
| Parties | NURUDDIN-Appellant Versus GHULAM MUSTAFA-Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1975 Karachi 688 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1975 Karachi 688 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Agha Ali Hyder, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1975 Karachi 688 (PLP) (NURUDDIN-Appellant Versus GHULAM MUSTAFA-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Fazal Bhoy for Appellant.
- Umar Khan Tank for Respondent.
- Dates of hearing : 5th February and 1st April 1975.
Headnotes / Summary
O. XX, r. 7 & O. XXI, r. 10 read with Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 182-Execution of decree-Limitation-Judgment dated 26-10-e6 but decree drawn up and signed on 14-7-67 and execution application filed on 20-3-70-Held : , Limitation for filing execution application would run from date when decree drawn up -and signed-Application for execution within time.. According to Order XXI, rule 11(2)(c) bf the Code of Civil Procedure-; every application for execution shall contain the date of the decree, and;. according to sub. rule (3), the Court to which an application is made under sub-rule (2), may require the applicant to produce a certified copy of the decree. It is true that according to sub-rule (1) of rule 1 of Order XLI, a memorandum of appeal shall be accompanied by a copy of the decree appealed from. However. the limitation for the filing of an appeal, under Article 156, and an execution application under Article 182 of the Limitation Act, is 90 days and 3 years respectively from "the date of decree or order". The execution application in question was admittedly filed within 3 years of the signing of the decree by the District Judge, though the date of the judgment would put it beyond that period. The limitation would run from the date when the decree was drawn up and signed. Golam Gafar Mondal v. Goljan Bihi I L R 25 Cal. 109 ; C. K. Perumal' Maistry v. Paikiri Komor A I R 1927 Rang. 335 ; Central Exchange Bank Ltd. v. Ch. Dilawar Ali Khan P L D 1965 Lab. 628 ; Naukaleshwar Sikdar v B. C. Chakravorty 1971 S C M R 54 ; Owners of the Ship "Brenhilda" v. The British Indian Steam Navigation Company I L R 7 Cal. 547 : Mangisram v. Gursahai I L R 17 Cal. 347 and The Government of West Pakistan and others v. Niaz Muhammad P L D 1967 S C 271 ref.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑ O. XX, r. 7 & O. XXI, r. 10 read with Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 182‑Execution of decree‑Limitation‑Judgment dated 26‑10‑e6 but decree drawn up and signed on 14‑7‑67 and execution application filed on 20‑3‑70‑Held : , Limitation for filing execution application would run from date when decree drawn up ‑and signed‑Application for execution within time.. According to Order XXI, rule 11(2)(c) bf the Code of Civil Procedure‑; every application for execution shall contain the date of the decree, and;. according to sub. rule (3), the Court to which an application is made under sub‑rule (2), may require the applicant to produce a certified copy of the decree. It is true that according to sub‑rule (1) of rule 1 of Order XLI, a memorandum of appeal shall be accompanied by a copy of the decree appealed from. However. the limitation for the filing of an appeal, under Article 156, and an execution application under Article 182 of the Limitation Act, is 90 days and 3 years respectively from "the date of decree or order". The execution application in question was admittedly filed within 3 years of the signing of the decree by the District Judge, though the date of the judgment would put it beyond that period. The limitation would run from the date when the decree was drawn up and signed. Golam Gafar Mondal v. Goljan Bihi I L R 25 Cal. 109 ; C. K. Perumal' Maistry v. Paikiri Komor A I R 1927 Rang. 335 ; Central Exchange Bank Ltd. v. Ch. Dilawar Ali Khan P L D 1965 Lab. 628 ; Naukaleshwar Sikdar v B. C. Chakravorty 1971 S C M R 54 ; Owners of the Ship "Brenhilda" v. The British Indian Steam Navigation Company I L R 7 Cal. 547 : Mangisram v. Gursahai I L R 17 Cal. 347 and The Government of West Pakistan and others v. Niaz Muhammad P L D 1967 S C 271 ref. Fazal Bhoy for Appellant. Umar Khan Tank for Respondent. Dates of hearing : 5th February and 1st April 1975.