Rasheeda Bibi (deceased) vs Arif Ali S — 2026 YLR 779 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.

Rasheeda Bibi (deceased) VS Arif Ali S.12 --- Limitation Act (IX of 1908), First Sched., Art.181---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell---Execution of decree---Limitation---Execution proceedings---Commencement and computation of limitation period---Determination---Pendency of appeal---Effect upon execution of decree---Executing court bound to execute a decree as it stands---Principle---Briefly, a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell was instituted by the respondent/plaintiff against the vendor (mother of the petitioners), which was decreed, subject to payment of the remaining sale consideration---The appeal against the decree was dismissed for non-prosecution, and the restoration application was also dismissed---Thereafter, the decree-holder filed an execution petition---Objections to execution were filed by the judgment-debtors which were dismissed, and the appeal against that order was also dismissed---The matter before the High Court in present civil revision petition concerned "whether the execution petition was barred by limitation and whether the objections to execution had been rightly dismissed by the courts below?"---Held: There was no specific Article of Limitation Act, 1908 which regulated the filing of execution petition in the matter of decree for specific performance or a preemption matter and the residuary Art.181 of the said Act applied which provided a period of three years from the date when the right to apply accrued and if decree holder was in possession of property having paid or deposited the sale price he would not have been required to file execution petition and right to apply in the matter would have arisen had the judgment debtor refused to perform his part-- In the present case the findings of the Trial Court were to the effect that the decree-holder was in possession of the property and had paid the earnest money while the balance sale price was deposited in terms of the decree of the court, as such, respondent No.1 could legally proceed with the execution of decree---As to the objection viz. balance sale consideration not being deposited in court within time, it was observed that decree was silent and did not stipulate the period during which balance sale consideration was to be deposited and, therefore, respondent could not suffer due to act or fault of court which passed the decree and that the respondent having deposited the amount on vacation of injunctive order passed in appeal, could not be made to suffer adversely---Even otherwise the Executing Court had to execute the decree as it was and could not question validity of the same on the ground which could have been raised in appeal against the decree---Another factor in the present case was that the suit was decreed on 10.12.2012 against which an appeal was filed on 02.1.2013 and on 02.1.2013 status quo was ordered to be maintained with the result that execution petition could not be filed and that the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution---On 29.4.2016 an application for restoration was filed which also remained pending for aconsiderable time and thereafter same was dismissed on 01.3.2017, while the execution petition was filed on 28.2.2020 which was within three years from the date of actual date of termination of proceedings---Impugned order was just, fair and legal and called for no interference---Civil revision petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Rasheeda Bibi (deceased) vs Arif Ali S — 2026 YLR 779 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 YLR