| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1992 SLG 2179 1992 SLD 2179 1992 PLJ 105 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No.791 of 1990, accepted on 26.5.1991 (Approved for reporting on 6.11.1991). [On appeal from judgment, Dated 18.4.1990, of Peshawar High Court, in C.R.No.3 of 1989.]. Date of hearing: 26.5.1991.
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH CJ AND MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE, J
Mr. Abdul Hakeem Khan, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court, instructed by Mr. Manzoor Elahi, Ex-AOR for Appellant. Malik Fazal Hussain, Advocate, Supreme Court, instructed by Mr. Imtiaz M. Khan, AOR for
Respondents
Civil Appeal No.791 of 1990, accepted on 26.5.1991 (Approved for reporting on 6.11.1991). [On appeal from judgment, Dated 18.4.1990, of Peshawar High Court, in C.R.No.3 of 1989.]. Date of hearing: 26.5.1991.
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH CJ AND MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE, J
Mr. Abdul Hakeem Khan, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court, instructed by Mr. Manzoor Elahi, Ex-AOR for Appellant. Malik Fazal Hussain, Advocate, Supreme Court, instructed by Mr. Imtiaz M. Khan, AOR for
Respondents
Maulvi ABDUL QAYYUM--Appellant
VS
Syed ALI ASGHAR SHAH and 5 others--Respondents
Law: Limitation Act, 1908
Section: 181
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 48
Limitation Act, 1908 (IX of 1908)-- —-Art.181 read with Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 48-Decree- • Execution of—Limitation for—Whether period of limitation would start from date of decision of first Appellate Court confirming decree of trial court or from date of decision of revision by High Court—Question of—It appears that in holding that period of limitation for execution of decree commenced from date of decision of Appellate Court, rule that decree of trial court merged into decree of Appellate Court, which alone can be executed, was not present to mind of learned Judge (of High Court)-iRule of merger also applies to decree passed in revision-Held: Article 181 of Act does not refer either to decree of Appellate Court or revisional court, but anchors commencement of limitation on accrual of right to apply, and such right legitimately arises when revision against decision of lower court is, one way or other, disposed of-Appeal accepted. [Pp.l06,107,108,109,110,lll112]A,B,C,D,E,FG 16 SWR 1,14 Morres I.A. 465, PLD 1964 SC 520, 37 IA 70, PLD 1954 Lahore 490, AIR 1930 Bombay 225, ILR 1899 Madras 68, 59 LA. 283, PLD 1961 Dacca 312, AIR 1937 Madras 385 and AIR 1970 SC 1 rel. JUDaGMENT Muhammad Afzal Lone, J.~This appeal through leave to appeal, filed by a decree holder in a pre-emption suit, is directed against the High Courts judgment dated 18.4.1990, passed in revision, whereby his execution petition was dismissed as barred by time. 2. The facts are not. in controversy. The trial Court decreed the suit for possession of the land in dispute, in favour of the appellant on 27.4.1981. The respondents first appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court was dismissed on 18.10.1981. Their revision before the High Court met the same fate. Consequently, the decree of the First Appellate Court was affirmed. The judgment and decree of the High Court are dated 18.11.1986. On 5.1.1987, the appellant moved an execution petition under Order, 21, Rule 11 CPC, which embodied the particulars of the decree of the trial…
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