Case Details

Citation(s)
1990 SLG 294 1990 SLD 294 1990 PLD 778
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 39 of 1988, decision dated: 20-12-1989.
MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C, J SHAFIUR RAHMAN, ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, SAAD SAOOD, JAN AND ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, JJ
J.H. Rahmitoola, Advocate Supreme Court and A. Aziz Dastgir, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant. Shafaat Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court and Faizanul Haq, Advocate-on-Record. Khalid Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court for Amicus curiae.

MAHBOOBKHAN

VS

HASSAN KHAN DURRANI

Law:

Section:

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)------- S.48 --- Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Arts.181 & 182 --- Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S. 2(l)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3) --- Leave to appeal was granted to examine a question of law viz. whether an application for execution of a decree passed by a Civil Court which was originally governed by Art.192 of the Limitation Act, 1908, was now after the omission of Art.182, Limitation Act, 1908 and amendments effected in S.48, C.P.C., by the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, governed by the residuary Art.181, Limitation Act, 1908 or by S.48, C.P.C. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ---- S.48 [as amended by Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S. 2(1) Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art.181 --- Object underlying S.48, C.P.C. stated --­With the disappearance of Art. 182, Limitation Act, 1908 by virtue of amendment by Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, no other Article of the Limitation Act, 1908 was specifically attracted to the application for execution of the decree of Civil Court, other than High Court --- In order to see whether in a case limitation contained in S.48, C.P.C. was attracted or not it was necessary to determine whether execution was sought on a fresh application presented after the said period. Link 1 As section 48, C.P.C. is mentioned in Article 181 by way of exclusionary provisions obviously this Article has to be read with section 49, C.P.C., although the two provisions are independent and parallel provisions with different scopes and objects. With the disappearance of Article 182 obvious no other Article of the Limitation Act is specifically attracted to the application for execution of the decree of a Court, other than High Court. On the plain language of section 48, C.P.C. the object underlying that section was to provide an outer limit of time and prohibit the making of an order for execution of a decree on a "fresh" application "presented" after expiration of six years from the date of the decree etc. In order to see whether in a case the limitation contained in section 48 is attracted or not it is necessary to determine whether execution was sought on a fresh application…
🔒
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