| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2021 SLG 139 2021 SLD 139 2021 CLC 126 |
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No. 222579 of 2018, decision Dated: 18th June, 2020, hearing Date : 5th June, 2020.
MUHAMMAD SAJID MEHMOOD SETHI, JUSTICE
Monim Sultan, Assistant Attorney General for
Respondents.
Civil Revision No. 222579 of 2018, decision Dated: 18th June, 2020, hearing Date : 5th June, 2020.
MUHAMMAD SAJID MEHMOOD SETHI, JUSTICE
Monim Sultan, Assistant Attorney General for
Respondents.
MUHAMMAD YOUNUS
VS
PAKISTAN POST THROUGH DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, SIALKOT-
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 47,5
Law: Limitation Act, 1908
Section: 181,15
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---
----S.47 O. XLI, R. 5---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 181 S.15---Suit for possession of immovable property---Appeal---Execution petition---Limitation, commencement of---Plaintiff filed suit for possession of immovable property which was decreed---Execution petition was moved wherein applicant filed objection petition that execution petition was time barred---Executing Court dismissed the objection petition which order was maintained by the Appellate Court---Validity---Time during which execution proceedings remained suspended should be excluded while computing period of limitation---Decree of Trial Court would continue to maintain its identity and would be capable of execution---Mere filing of appeal did not operate as a stay of execution of decree---Appellate Court had powers to issue stay order against execution of a decree---Mere filing of execution petition did not render the appeal infructuous---Decree remained capable of execution till an appeal or revision was filed or such proceedings were pending but no stay order had been passed---No limitation had been provided for execution of a decree of Civil Court which had merged into decree of Appellate Court---Limitation for execution of decree would commence from accrual of right to apply and such right would start when appeal or revision had been finally disposed of by the last higher forum---Limitation period for filing execution petition would be reckoned from the date of appellate decision---Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.
Bakhtiar Ahmed v. Mst. Shamim Akhtar and others 2013 SCMR 5; Muhammad Iqbal v. Additional District Judge, Rahimyar Khan and others PLD 2011 Lah. 497; Kareem Nawaz Khan v. The State through PGP and another 2016 SCMR 291; Sahabzadi Maharunisa and another v. Mst. Ghulam Sughran and another PLD 2016 SC 358 and Pervaiz Rasheed and others v. Ex-Officio Justice of Peace and others 2016 YLR 1441 ref.
Maulvi Abdul Qayyum v. Syed Ali Asghar Shah and 5 others 1992 SCMR 241; Muhammad Nazir and another v. Qaiser Ali Khan and 4 others 2003 SCMR 436; Dost Muhammad v. Muhammad Rafiq 2003 YLR 1908; Rasheed Ahmad and 7 others v. Farrukh Ameen and 3 others 2016 YLR Note 87 and Nagendra Nath Dey and another v. Suresh Chandra Dey and others AIR 1932 PC 165 rel.
----S.47 O. XLI, R. 5---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 181 S.15---Suit for possession of immovable property---Appeal---Execution petition---Limitation, commencement of---Plaintiff filed suit for possession of immovable property which was decreed---Execution petition was moved wherein applicant filed objection petition that execution petition was time barred---Executing Court dismissed the objection petition which order was maintained by the Appellate Court---Validity---Time during which execution proceedings remained suspended should be excluded while computing period of limitation---Decree of Trial Court would continue to maintain its identity and would be capable of execution---Mere filing of appeal did not operate as a stay of execution of decree---Appellate Court had powers to issue stay order against execution of a decree---Mere filing of execution petition did not render the appeal infructuous---Decree remained capable of execution till an appeal or revision was filed or such proceedings were pending but no stay order had been passed---No limitation had been provided for execution of a decree of Civil Court which had merged into decree of Appellate Court---Limitation for execution of decree would commence from accrual of right to apply and such right would start when appeal or revision had been finally disposed of by the last higher forum---Limitation period for filing execution petition would be reckoned from the date of appellate decision---Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.
Bakhtiar Ahmed v. Mst. Shamim Akhtar and others 2013 SCMR 5; Muhammad Iqbal v. Additional District Judge, Rahimyar Khan and others PLD 2011 Lah. 497; Kareem Nawaz Khan v. The State through PGP and another 2016 SCMR 291; Sahabzadi Maharunisa and another v. Mst. Ghulam Sughran and another PLD 2016 SC 358 and Pervaiz Rasheed and others v. Ex-Officio Justice of Peace and others 2016 YLR 1441 ref.
Maulvi Abdul Qayyum v. Syed Ali Asghar Shah and 5 others 1992 SCMR 241; Muhammad Nazir and another v. Qaiser Ali Khan and 4 others 2003 SCMR 436; Dost Muhammad v. Muhammad Rafiq 2003 YLR 1908; Rasheed Ahmad and 7 others v. Farrukh Ameen and 3 others 2016 YLR Note 87 and Nagendra Nath Dey and another v. Suresh Chandra Dey and others AIR 1932 PC 165 rel.
JUDGMENT
MUHAMMAD SAJID MEHMOOD SETHI, JUSTICE:------
Through instant petition, petitioner has assailed order dated 31.03.2018 and judgment dated 07.06.2018, passed by learned Civil Judge and Additional District Judge, Sialkot, respectively, whereby petitioners objection petition was concurrently dismissed.
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492