Pakistan Case Law
2007 SCMR 1929

HOUSE BUILDING FINANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN vs Rana MUHAMMAD

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2007 SCMR 1929
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Date2006-03-16
Judge(s)Faqir Muhammad Khokhar and Ch. Ijaz Ahmed
Authored byFaqir Muhammad Khokhar
ResultPetition dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This petition for leave to appeal arose from the dismissal of an execution application filed by the House Building Finance Corporation of Pakistan. The application to execute a decree dated 8-3-1997 was filed on 14-10-2000 and was dismissed as time-barred by the Additional District Judge, Jhang, a decision subsequently upheld in appeal by the Lahore High Court. The core legal question was whether the limitation period for filing a first application for execution of a decree is three years under Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908 or six years under Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decisions and refused leave to appeal. Reaffirming established precedent, the Court held that the limitation period for making a first execution application is three years as governed by Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908. Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 applies only to fresh execution applications after the initial application has been disposed of.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • What is the limitation period for filing a first application for execution of a decree?
  • Does Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to a first execution application?
  • Which statutory provision governs the limitation period for a first application to execute a civil decree?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Section 48, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
  • Article 181, Limitation Act 1908
execution of decreelimitation periodfirst execution applicationfresh execution applicationleave to appealcivil execution

' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.--- The petitioner filed an application for the execution of decree dated 8-3-1997 on 14-10-2000 which was dismissed, as barred by time, by order dated 15-6-2001, passed by the Additional District Judge, Jhang. The F.A.O. No,181 of 2001 of the petitioner was also dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore vide impugned order, dated 19-6-2002. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the execution of the decree passed in favour of the petitioners ought not have been refused merely on a technical point of limitation and that even otherwise, the period of limitation for such-like applications was six years and not three years as provided by section 48, C.P.C.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and have also perused the available record. We find that the controversy involved in the present case has already been set at rest by this Court in the case of Mahboob Khan v. Hassan Khan Durrani PLD 1990 SC 778, wherein it was held that for making first application for execution of a decree a period of three years was provided in terms of Article 181 of the Limitation Act and that the provisions of section 48, C.P.C.

Could be availed only in the case of fresh application, once the first application had been disposed of. In our view, the impugned order of the High Court is in conformity with the law laid down by this Court to which no exception can be taken.

4. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed and leave to, appeal is refused accordingly.

Cited by 12 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.