1980 PLP 1327 (CLC)
BANK OF BAHAWALPUR LTD.-Decree-Holder Versus OZZIR ZUBY-Defendant/Judgment-debtor
| Citation | 1980 PLP 1327 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Ajmal Mian, J |
| Parties | BANK OF BAHAWALPUR LTD.-Decree-Holder Versus OZZIR ZUBY-Defendant/Judgment-debtor |
| Primary Law | Limitation Act (IX of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1980 PLP 1327 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Limitation Act (IX of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1980 PLP 1327 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Ajmal Mian, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1980 PLP 1327 (CLC) (BANK OF BAHAWALPUR LTD.-Decree-Holder Versus OZZIR ZUBY-Defendant/Judgment-debtor). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 183-Execution of decree-Cause of action-Reviver Issuing of process (writ of attachment) by execution Court, held, constitutes reviver of cause of action and such date basic date for computing period of limitation under Art. 183.-[Decree]. Amulya Ratan Banerjee and others v. Banku Behari Chatterjee A I R 1925 Cal. 668 ; A. T. K. P. L. M. Muthiar Chettiar v. Chidambaran Chetty and others A I R 1928 Cal. 686 and Hasan Vali Bagas v. Isap Bapuji Patel and others A I R 1939 Born. 51 ref. Mansoor-ul-Arfin for the Decree-Holder. Abdul Rauf for Defendant.
Judgment & Decree
decree or order has been revived, or some part of the principal money secured thereby or some interest on such money has been paid, or some acknowledgment of the right thereto has been given in writing signed by the person liable to pay such principal or interest, or his agent, to the person entitled thereto or his agent the six years shall be come from the date of such reviver, payment of acknow ledgement or the latest of such revivers, payments or acknow legements, as the case may be." Mr. Abdul Rauf, has urged that at the most for the purpose of reviving the cause of action for the instant execution application, date of the aforesaid compromise application, namely 18th December, 1%7 is the last date and, therefore, the application Is barred by time. Whereas according to Mr. Arfin the last date for reviving the cause of action is 25th October, 1972. When this Court in Execution No. 197172 ordered the issuance of a Writ of attachment. (b) Mr. A. Rauf has referred the case of Amulya Aatan , and others v. Banku Behari Chatterjee (A I R 1925 Cal. 1668), the case of A. r, P. L. M. Muthiar Chattair v. Chidambaran Chetty and others (A I R 1928 Cal. 680 and the case of Masan Vali Bagas v. Isap Bapuji Patel and others (A 1 It 1939 Boom. 31) In the above two Calcutta cases it was held that in order to constitute reviver of a cause of action, there must be expressly or by implication a determination that the decree is still capable of execution and that the decree-holder is still entitled to enforce it. On the other hand Mr. Arfin has relied upon an unreported order dated 28th October, 1978 passed in Execution Application No. 54/78 by this Court, in which it was held that issuing of the process by the Court would constitute reviver of the cause of action. (c) In the instant case it has not been controverted by the learned counsel for the judgment-debtor that this Court had ordered the issuaner, of a process on 25th October, 1972 in Execution No. 197/72 as mentioned hereinabove and, therefore, for the purpose of computing the period o, A limitation, 25th October, 1972 would be taken as the basic date 0fo computing the period of 6 years provided for in the above-quote Article 183 of the First Schedule to the Limitation Act, and since the present execution application was filed on 18th October, 1977. it is within time. I therefore, dismiss the judgment-debtor's above application, but there will be no order as to cost. The process shall be issued as prayed for by the decree-holder. Application dismissed.