Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 48, 115

Law: Limitation Act (IX of 1908)

Section: 181

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) S. 48---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art.181---Execution application-- Limitation---Period prescribed under Art.181 of Limitation Act, 1908 is three years for the first execution application from the date of preparation of decree. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) Ss. 48 & 115---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art.181---Limitation-- Computation of period of limitation---Suit was decreed by the Trial Court and the judgment of the Trial Court was upheld by Lower Appellate Court on 27-11-1993---Judgment-debtor preferred revision in High Court which was dismissed in limine on 11-4-1994---First application for execution was filed by the decree-holder on 17-2-1997 after the dismissal of revision application---Contention by the judgment-debtor was that the application was time-barred as the same was filed after a period of three years ---Validity-- Where High Court had drawn decree-sheet the limitation period would start from the date of decree passed by High Court even in revision---Revision was dismissed in limine and no decree-sheet was drawn by tire High Court, thus, the limitation period of three years started from 27-11-1993 i.e., date of order of Appellate Court and not from 11-4-1994---Execution application filed by decree-holder on 17-2-1997 was barred by two months and 20 days---Judgment and order passed by the Lower Appellate Court on 27-5-1998 was set aside and that of Civil Judge/Illaqa Qazi, dated 28-6-1997 was upheld---Execution application filed by the decree-holder was dismissed in circumstances. Mrs. Alice Walter v. Islamud Din Qtreshi PLD 1968 Kar. 19 ref. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) S. 48---Execution---Merger, rule of---Exception---Where a decree was passed by revisional Court, in such a case rule of merger was applicable to the judgment and decree of the revisional Court---Where, however, no decree was passed by the revisional Court while disposing of revision petition either in limine or otherwise, the rule of merger was not applicable. Maulvi Abdul Qayyum v. Syed Ali Asghar Shah and 5 others 1992 SCMR 241 ref. Date of hearing: 11th September, 2000.              …