MUHAMMAD ARSHAD vs Haji ABDUL GHAFOOR Ss — 2025 CLC 344 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

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

MUHAMMAD ARSHAD VS Haji ABDUL GHAFOOR Ss. 47 & 48 ---Limitation Act (IX of 1908) First Sched., Art. 181---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 12---Decree of specific performance---Second execution petition---Limitation---Scope---Executing Court dismissed the objection petition of the respondents, however, the same was accepted by the District (First Appellate) Court and execution petition, being second one, filed by the petitioners/decree-holders was dismissed declaring the same barred by limitation---Plea of the judgment-debtor (objection petitioner/respondent) was that earlier decree-holder filed execution petition which was dismissed for non-prosecution, then second execution petition was filed beyond limitation prescribed by law---Validity---Admittedly, suit for specific performance of the petitioners (decree-holders/plaintiffs) was decreed on 22.12.1999 and they filed execution petition on 13.01.2000 for satisfaction of said judgment and decree which petition was dismissed due to non-prosecution on 26.04.2002---However, record revealed that, against the original judgment and decree, the respondents (defendants/judgment debtors) preferred first appeal which was dismissed by the District (First Appellate) Court on 25.05.2009 and their Regular Second Appeal was dismissed on 05.10.2009, which was not further challenged by the respondent---It was after the dismissal of the appeal of the respondents by the District(first Appellate) Court ( on 25.05.2009 ) that the petitioner/ decree-holder promptly filed second execution petition on 05.06.2009 for execution of decree (dated 22.12.1999)---Under Article 181 of the Limitation Act, 1908, the period provided for first execution petition was three years from passing of the decree and under S. 48, C.P.C, the second execution petition had to be filed within 6 years of the judgment and decree---If the decree has been challenged before the higher forum and stay is granted, then filing of execution petition subsequently cannot be held to be barred by time---Thus, in the present case, execution petition of the petitioners was well within time---High Court set-aside the impugned judgment passed by the District Court; consequently, the order passed by the Civil/Executing Court was upheld---Revision was allowed, in circumstances.

MUHAMMAD ARSHAD vs Haji ABDUL GHAFOOR Ss — 2025 CLC 344 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 CLC