Law: Limitation Act, 1908

Section: Arts. 183, 182 ,181

  ---Arts. 183, 182 & 181  Execution of judgment and decree passed by the High Court of Sindh in civil suits---Provisions of Art. 183, Limitation Act., 1908 would not be applicable but Art. 181 or 182 would apply. While entertaining and trying civil suits the High Court of Sindh mercises "District Court jurisdiction in contradistinction to the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the High Court." Article 183 provides a period of limitation of six years for enforcing a judgment, decree or order from any High Court in the exercise of its `ordinary original civil jurisdiction'. Therefore it is the nature of jurisdiction exercised by the High Court of Sindh which will determine the applicability of the Articles. Article 183, Limitation Act, 1908, therefore, cannot be applied. Either Article 181 or 182 will be applicable. In both the cases the period of limitation is three years. No other interpretation of these Articles in respect of execution of judgment and decree passed by the High Court of Sindh in civil suits can be taken. Firdous Trading Corporation and others v. Japan Cotton and General Trading Co. Ltd. P L D 1961 Kar. 565 not a correct law. Haji Razzak v. Usman and others P L D 1975 Kar. 944 approved. Province of Sindh v. ,ji Razzaq and another Civil Appeals r4os.137 and 145-K of 1976 (1991 SCMR 9 fol). Kanwar Mukhtar Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court and Ammer A. Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant. Ali Akbar, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents. Date of hearing: 21st April 1991, JUDGMENT   SALEEM AKHTAR, J.-This appeal is directed against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Sindh High Court passed in Letters Patent Appeal whereby order of the learned Single Judge dismissing the execution application filed by the respondents as barred by limitation was set aside and was held to have been filed within the period of limitation. By order dated 12-3-1980, leave to appeal was granted to examine reinterpretation of Article 183 of the Limitation A Act. Briefly the facts are that the respondents filed Suit No. 56/1962 for specific performance of a contract in respect of sale of immovable property against the appellant. The…