Law: Limitation Act, 1908

Section: 181

Law: Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Section: 115

Case Summary The petitioner challenged an Appellate Court order which had dismissed his execution petition regarding a suit for specific performance. In 2015, a Trial Court issued a conditional decree in favor of the petitioner, requiring the deposit of Rs. 3,09,00,000 within seven days. The petitioner failed to comply with this timeline and was subsequently denied an extension of time by the Trial Court. Despite various revision and review applications regarding the extension, the original decree dated March 26, 2015, remained unchallenged and was never stayed. The High Court reached two primary conclusions: Ineffectiveness of the Decree: Because the decree was conditional and the petitioner failed to fulfill the deposit requirement within the stipulated seven days, the decree became legally inoperative. No executable decree survived for the petitioner to enforce. Bar of Limitation: Under Article 181 of the Limitation Act, 1908, the limitation for such applications is three years. Since the decree was passed in 2015 and the execution petition was only filed in 2021, the proceedings were initiated well beyond the statutory limit. Tagline A conditional decree becomes legally inoperative upon failure to fulfill its express conditions, and any subsequent execution petition must be filed within the three-year limitation period prescribed under Article 181 of the Limitation Act if the decree has not been stayed or modified by a superior court. ORDER; INAAM AMEEN MINHAS, J:- Through the instant civil revision, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 24.01.2023 (“Impugned Order”), passed by the learned Additional District Judge, East-Islamabad (“Appellate Court”), whereby the appeal filed by the respondents was allowed. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 4.06.2014, which the respondents contested through a written statement. During the proceedings on 26.03.2015, Mr. Sabir Hussain Rao, Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents made his statement in favour of the petitioner’s claim admitted the agreement to sell dated 04.06.2014 subject…