Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 199

Law: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898

Section: 20(14), 20(20), 48, 9

Law: Limitation Act, 1908

Section: 181

SUMMARY Execution of decree through issuance of writ instead of application for execution of decree: It is an admitted position that the petitioners have failed to establish the very existence of the alleged decree passed in Civil Suit No. 481/1 dated 20.09.1987, despite instituting a subsequent suit bearing No. 185/1, which too was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge on 24.06.2023. Even otherwise, assuming for the sake of argument that such a decree had been passed, the petitioners were under a legal obligation to seek its execution within the period of limitation prescribed by law. There is no cavil to the settled proposition that the first application for execution of a decree is governed by Article 181 of the Limitation Act, 1908, which prescribes a limitation period of three years. Since the alleged decree in Civil Suit No. 481/1 is stated to have been passed on 20.09.1987, the petitioners could have moved an execution application within three years from the date of the decree. In such circumstances, the question of the application of section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure would not arise at the initial stage, as the said provision becomes relevant only with respect to subsequent applications for execution after the first execution petition has been filed within the prescribed limitation. The essence of the principle laid down is that the extended limitation contemplated under section 48, C.P.C. becomes available only when the decree- holder has first invoked the execution jurisdiction within the limitation period prescribed by Article 181. If the decree-holder fails to file even the first execution application within the prescribed period, the right to execute the decree itself becomes extinguished. In the present case, the petitioners admittedly did not avail themselves of the remedy provided under the law for execution of the alleged decree, nor did they take any steps for the incorporation of their names in the revenue record on the basis of such decree. The petitioners/decree-holders, therefore, remained dormant for decades without initiating execution proceedings. Such prolonged inaction clearly renders any attempt to enforce the alleged decree…