R.A (Civil Revision) 147/2022 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi

Sindh High Court · 2024 · Before Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam

Through the present Civil Revision Application, the Appellant has challenged the Order dated 09.09.2022 [the “Impugned Order”] passed in Civil Appeal No.184 of 2021, whereby, the Order dated 17.09.2021 of the learned Executing Court [in Execution Application No.13 of 2020] dismissing the Application of present Respondent No.1, filed under Section 3 of the Limitation Act [1908], has been overturned, as a result of which the above Execution Application of the Appellant has been dismissed.

2. Mr. Malik Waseem Iqbal, Advocate, representing the Applicant(s), has argued that the limitation of three years, in terms of Article 181 of the Limitation Act, would be counted when the last order was passed, which is of 22.02.2022, by this Court in Revision Application No.39 of 2014 preferred by the present Respondent No.1, dismissing the same and maintaining the Judgment and Decree of the Appellate Court, in favour of the Applicant. The Execution Application is filed on 19th August 2020, that is, six months after the above Order [passed in Revision proceeding], and is 2 within time. In support of his arguments, he has cited the case law reported in_ i. 1992 S C M R 241 [Maulvi Abdul Qayyum versus Syed Ali Asghar Shah and 5 others] – Abdul Qayyum case ii. 2013 S C M R 5 [Bakhtiar Ahmed versus Mst. Shamim Akhtar and others] – Bakhtiar case iii. 2021 C L C 909 [Director General (Headquarters) Civil Works Organization, Rawalpindi through Authorized Officer versus Muhammad Afsar and others]; and iv. P L D 2009 Karachi 397 [Ferozuddin and 11 others versus Mazhar Hussain Shah and 5 others].

3. On the other hand, Syed Ehsan Raza, Advocate, representing Respondent No.1, has controverted the above arguments and has supported the Impugned Order. Contended that Execution proceeding initiated by the Applicant itself is time barred as it is filed after a period of three years in violation of Article 181 [ibid]; because the limitation period is to be counted from date when the first time the Applicant got the Decision in his favour, that is, through the Judgment and Decree dated 3rd March 2014, given by the Appellate Court; which was maintained by this Court in the above Revision Proceeding and in the intervening period since no stay was operating, thus, the above Execution Proceeding should have been filed much earlier [three years after the Appellate Court Decision of 03.03.2014], but, initiated after six years, is barred by time; that Respondent No.1 [judgment debtor] should not be at mercy of decree holder/ the Applicant, as far as the implementation of judgment and decree is concerned. He has cited the following case law_ i. P L D 1985 Supreme Court 153 [Hakim Muhammad Buta and another versus Habib Ahmed and others]; and ii. P L D 2020 Sindh 652 [Mst. Noor Jehan and others versus Miss Shahnaz and 3 others] – Mst. Noor Jehan. 3

4. Undisputed facts are that present Applicant has filed Suit No.409 of 2005 against the Respondents, inter alia, for declaring Sale Agreement dated 09.01.1999 between the Respondents as forged and fictitious document and direction to Respondent No.1 [Muhammad Ayoub] for handing over the subject property to the Applicant, which the latter has…

Opening of the judgment. Loading the full judgment on LexPK…