O XXI, R 10, Articles 48 and 100 of the Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Sections 8 and 12 of the Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Article 181, which enforce the application for a limitation order And the specific recovery performance case is the order was issued, the application for execution of the order was filed, which was rejected by time restriction. Holder claimed that he had previously applied for a timely order, but had already been dismissed because of this, had re-filed the order. Was , Which was rejected by the court without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case and accepting the objection to the decision in respect of any limitation, and filed the first application for execution of the order within a period of three years. It was deliberate and once it was timely filed, any requests for execution could be granted within six years' time. , The decree-holder had failed to prove any such request before the court, he failed to even mention the exact date of filing of the first execution petition given by him, the order-keeper It did not insist that it was barred from filing because of fraud or misrepresentation. Such an application; or there were circumstances whereby he was unable to file a timely application for execution of the decree; no such request was emphasized by the decree-holder, Delay in filing application on the basis of delay
Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2010
