ALI AHMAD versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SIALKOT
Article 181 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), section 48, under the filing of the petitioner (petitioner) of the limitation, the orders passed by both the courts below have been suspended, under which, to impose sanctions. On the basis of his objection to dismissing his petition for petition, the respondent (s) was denied that the order (respondents) had filed the execution petition dated 16.6 2006 Was issued on 14 10 1981, which was banned which was heard by the trial court on 14 10 1981 and before and regularly The second appeal filed by the defendant before the High Court was dismissed on 27 11 1984 and 30 10 2001 respectively, against the High Court order, the defendant, filed a leave for appeal before the Supreme Court. , Which was excluded in 20 12 2009 Article 181, the first schedule, the Limitation Act, 1908, with a fixed term of three years for application, while the Article 48 Civil Code of Conduct, 1908, followed by a six-year exterior The limitation was provided that the appeal filed by the defendant for the hearing of the prosecution's request was pending before the Supreme Court and dismissed on 20 12 2006. Since the case was removed was used as the legal jurisdiction to entertain the application to execute the court's execution pending the Supreme Court and is therefore questionable. The Petition Court also rightly rejected the appeal for good reason that the execution request was not banned because the matter was a sub-decision before the Supreme Court till 22 10 2006, on both the lower courts.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2013
