Case Details

Citation(s)
1954 SLG 62 1954 SLD 62 1954 PLD 388
Lahore High Court
Execution First Appeal No. 45 of 1953, decided on 8th March 1954, from the order of Muhammad Afzal Khan, Senior Civil Judge, Sargodha, dated the 22nd April 1953
B. Z. KAIKAUS, J
Abdul Hague, for Appellant. Muhammad Akram, and Abdul Aziz, for
Respondent

Hakim GHULAM JILANI

VS

Hakim MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH

Law: Limitation Act, 1908

Section: 182

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 48

Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 182-Applies to cases where there has been appeal-Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution--Art 182 does not apply and only section 48 C. P. C. is applicable in such case-Art applies when decision is on merits. Article 182 provides for cases "where there has been an appeal". While interpreting section 48, C. P. C, we should not import considerations based on Article 182, Limitation Act. If the legislature intended that even in cases arising under section 48, limitation should be reckoned from the point of time mentioned in Article 182, it could easily have said so. The legislature is deemed to be well aware of the difference in the language which is used in the two provisions. Assuming, without conceding that an anomaly is created, it would be for the legislature to remove the anomaly and not for the Courts as the words used are capable of only one interpretation that is that the date from which time is to be reckoned is the date of the decree. If an appeal be filed against a decree, of course quite apart from any recourse to the wording of Article 182, Limitation would, in cases where there is an adjudication of the appeal on merits, run from the date of the decision of the appeal because when an appeal has been filed against a decree whether it relates to the whole or a portion of the decree, the decree of the appellate Court is the only decree that survives the decision of the appeal. While an appeal against the decree would always result, whenever there is an adjudication of the appeal by the appellate Court, in a disappearance of the decree of the trial Court altogether, an appeal against an order based on a decree cannot on any legal principle merge the decree of the trial Court in that of the appellate Court. In fact there is no appellate decree at all in such a case. We cannot, therefore, say that because there is a difference with respect to the starting point between Article 182 and section 48, we should apply the language used in Article 182 to section 48 also. I L R 26 Mad. 91 rel. on. A I R 1939 Pat. 607, A I R 1943 Pat. 371, I L R 36 All. 350, A I R 1940 Mad. 127, A I R 1935 Lah. 292 and A I R 1944 Lah. 68 ref. A I…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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