Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Free WhatsApp lawyer help
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.

💬 Instant WhatsApp chat ⚖ Verified lawyer directory ⏰ Replies in minutes

NURUDDIN versus GHULAM MUSTAFA


O XX, r 7 & O XXI, r 10 read with the Activation Act (IX of 1908), the implementation of Article 182 is the implementation of the limitation decision 26 10 E6 but the signing of this decree and the signing of 14 7 67 Filed and executed on 20 20 70: The deadline for filing an execution application will be issued from the time the decree is ready and the request for execution will be signed within time.

P L D 1975 Karachi 688

Before Agha Ali Hyder, J

NURUDDIN‑Appellant

versus

GHULAM MUSTAFA‑Respondent

First Appeal No. 31 of 1972, decided on 25th April 1975.

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑

‑‑ O. XX, r. 7 & O. XXI, r. 10 read with Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 182‑Execution of decree‑Limitation‑Judgment dated 26‑10‑e6 but decree drawn up and signed on 14‑7‑67 and execution application filed on 20‑3‑70‑Held : , Limitation for filing execution application would run from date when decree drawn up ‑and signed‑Application for execution within time..

According to Order XXI, rule 11(2)(c) bf the Code of Civil Procedure‑; every application for execution shall contain the date of the decree, and;. according to sub. rule (3), the Court to which an application is made under sub‑rule (2), may require the applicant to produce a certified copy of the decree. It is true that according to sub‑rule (1) of rule 1 of Order XLI, a memorandum of appeal shall be accompanied by a copy of the decree appealed from. However. the limitation for the filing of an appeal, under Article 156, and an execution application under Article 182 of the Limitation Act, is 90 days and 3 years respectively from "the date of decree or order". The execution application in question was admittedly filed within 3 years of the signing of the decree by the District Judge, though the date of the judgment would put it beyond that period. The limitation would run from the date when the decree was drawn up and signed.

Golam Gafar Mondal v. Goljan Bihi I L R 25 Cal. 109 ; C. K. Perumal' Maistry v. Paikiri Komor A I R 1927 Rang. 335 ; Central Exchange Bank Ltd. v. Ch. Dilawar Ali Khan P L D 1965 Lab. 628 ; Naukaleshwar Sikdar v B. C. Chakravorty 1971 S C M R 54 ; Owners of the Ship "Brenhilda" v. The British Indian Steam Navigation Company I L R 7 Cal. 547 : Mangisram v. Gursahai I L R 17 Cal. 347 and The Government of West Pakistan and others v. Niaz Muhammad P L D 1967 S C 271 ref.

Fazal Bhoy for Appellant.

Umar Khan Tank for Respondent.

Dates of hearing : 5th February and 1st April 1975.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
best advocate from Hyderabad lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.
Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes
👋 Need a lawyer? Chat with us free on WhatsApp now.