Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Civil Petition No. 809 of 1984,
decided on 4th November, 1984.
(Against the judgment and order, dated 15‑7‑1984 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Civil Petition No. 1162 of 1984).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 48‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 182‑‑Execution of decree‑‑Application for execution filed after more than 3 years of dismissal of last application Objection of limitation rejected by executing Court‑‑Order upheld in appeal and revision‑‑Petition for leave to appeal‑‑Clog on right of decree‑holder to institute second or subsequent application for execution of decree within three years from dismissal of last application‑Removal of clog by Law Reforms Ordinance in 1972 and law of limitation being primarily a procedural law, such clog will not subsist after its repeal‑‑Petitioner judgment‑debtor cannot claim a vested right arising oft of it as none was conferred by such a provision‑‑Substance of provisions made in S. 48, C. P. C. and Art, 182 of Limitation Act being different, same principle as applies in giving effect to S. 48, C.P.C. cannot be extended to Art. 182, Limitation Act‑‑Bar of moving application within three years of rejection of last application did not continue after Law Reforms Ordinance of 1972‑‑Petition being devoid of merits, dismissed.
A. Karim Malik, Advocate instructed by Iqbal Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
M. Afzal, Advocate Supreme Court and Hamid Aslam Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 7th November, 1984.
The petitioner, a judgment‑debtor, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 15‑7‑1984 whereby a civil revision petition filed by him objecting to the execution of the decree of the Civil Court, was rejected in limine and the order of the first appellate Court was upheld.
The respondent obtained a money decree on the 24th of September, 1969 from the Court of Civil Judge. There was no appeal against it. The first execution application was filed on 12th of Nay, 1972 but dismissed on 16th of September, 1976 on the ground that the address of the petitioner had not been filed. The second application for execution was filed on 19th of November, 1976 and that too was dismissed for non‑prosecution on 20‑7‑1977. A third application was filed on 25th of September, 1977 which too was dismissed on 20th of May, 1978 for the decree‑holder's failure to file a copy of the decree sheet. It was in this background that the fourth application for execution of the decree was filed on 25th of June, 1981 and an objection to it: execution was taken, inter alia, on the ground that it was filed beyond the period prescribed in Article 182 of the Limitation Act as it was not within three years of the dismissal of the last application though it was within twelve years of the passing of the decree. The executing Court rejected this objection on 26th of February, 1984. An appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Lahore. The High Court refused to interfere in revision. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that undoubtedly the amendment in section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure made by the Law Reforms ordinance, 1972 could not affect such decrees as were passed before the enforcement of the amendment. On the same reasoning it was contended that repeal of Article 182 of the Limitation Act by the same Ordinance could not affect the vested right of the petitioner judgment‑debtor to insist that the application for execution must be moved within three years of the dismissal of the earlier execution application.
Article 182 of the Limitation Act did contain a clog on the right of the decree‑holder as he was required to institute the second or subsequent application for execution of the decree within a period of three years from the dismissal of the last application. This clog having been removed by the Law Reforms Ordinance in 1972 and the law of the limitation, being primarily a procedural law such a clog will not subsist after its repeal. The petitioner cannot claim a vested right arising out of it as none was conferred by such a provision. The substance of the provisions made in section 48 of the Civil Procedure Code and Article 182 of the Limitation Act being different the same principle as applies in giving effect to section 48 cannot be extended to Article 182 of the Limitation Act. The bar of moving the application within three years of the rejection of the last application did not continue. As otherwise the application had been made within twelve years from the date of the decree, it fulfilled requirement of section 48 as it stood before its amendment by Law Reforms Ordinance.
We find that there is no merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and leave to appeal is refused.
M. I. Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer