DIRECTOR-GENERAL (HEADQUARTERS) CIVIL WORKS ORGANIZATION vs Haji BANARAS S — 2021 YLR 1222 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Citation: 2021 YLR 1222 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
Court: Peshawar High Court
Year: 2021
Reporter: YLR
Parties: DIRECTOR-GENERAL (HEADQUARTERS) CIVIL WORKS ORGANIZATION vs Haji BANARAS S
Subject matter: Criminal
Provisions referred to: S. 48---L; Limitation Act ( IX of 1908); Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972); Law Reforms Ordinance; Limitation Act; Civil Procedure Code

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Judgment text as reported

DIRECTOR-GENERAL (HEADQUARTERS) CIVIL WORKS ORGANIZATION VS Haji BANARAS S. 48---Limitation Act ( IX of 1908), Art. 181---Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), Preamble---First execution application---Limitation---Decree-holders filed execution applications after the final order of decree of the Appellate Court---Objection raised, at the Executing Court, by the Appellant (judgment-debtor) was that the execution petitions were not filed within prescribed time from the date of original decree---Held, that after promulgation of Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, first application for execution of a decree was to be governed by residuary Art. 181 of the Limitation Act, 1908, and the application, made thereafter, would be governed by six years period of limitation as provided by section 48 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908---Record revealed the Appellant had previously assailed the judgment of the High Court through separate civil petitions, which were contested by the decree-holders and the same were dismissed by the Supreme Court not on merits but being barred by time; whereafter, execution petitions were filed---Right to file the execution petitions accrued to the respondents (decree-holders) after dismissal of appeals by the Supreme Court---Though Supreme Court did not dismiss said appeals on merits, but on limitation, because the same were contested by the respondents(decree-holders), therefore, the period of limitation, in the case, would commence from the date of judgment/order of the Supreme Court---Execution applications filed by the respondents (decree-holders) were not barred by time---Executing Court rightly dismissed the objection petitions of the appellants--- Appeals were dismissed, in circumstances.

Other judgments reported in 2021 YLR

2021 YLR 110 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANDEPUTY COMMISSIONER (REVENUE)/COLLECTOR VS MEHRULLAH KHAN. Ss. 18 & 23 - Reference to court - Enhancement of compensation - Referee Judge en…
2021 YLR 90 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANRAKHSHANDA JAMAL VS SHAHID-UL-HASSAN. Art. 199 - Constitutional petition - Maintainability - Pendency of criminal proceedings - Petitioner s…
2021 YLR 2068 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTGHULAM MUHAMMAD VS REGIONAL COMMISSIONER FOR FEDERAL OMBUDSMAN, PESHAWAR ambiguity, avoiding of---Principle---Each and every part of statute…
2021 YLR 328 ISLAMABADMUHAMMAD NAWAZ VS State S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 406, 468, 471 & 109---prevention of electronic Crimes Act (XL of 2016), Ss. 1…
2021 YLR 2033 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTMUHEEB ULLAH VS State absconsion---Scope---Conviction of an accused could not be based on his abscondence when otherwise the prosecution fai…
2021 YLR 1560 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTMEHBOOB-UR-REHMAN VS State S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 149--- Bail--- Common object---Vicarious liability---Scope---Question of vi…

Back to the case-law library · Search Pakistani case law in Urdu or English