FEROZ AHMED KHAN Versus FASIULLAH SHEIKH

ORDER

1. SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.--- Through the application, listed at Serial No.1, the judgment-debtor No.1, has prayed for the payment of decretal amount in instalment of Rs.25,000 per month whereas through application, listed at Serial No.2, it is prayed that till the decretal amount is paid the Execution of the decree be stayed.

2. Mr. Munir-ur-Rehman, learned counsel for the judgment-debtors, has stated that the judgment-debtor No.1 has consented to the enhancement of the instalment to the extent of Rs.50,000 per month and is also ready to make down payment upto Rs.3,00,000.

3. On the other hand, Mr. M.A.I. Lakhani, learned counsel appearing for the Decree-holder, has invited my attention to Article 175 of the Limitation Act and has contended that the application, listed at Serial No.1, is hopelessly barred by time. It is contended that Article 175 of the Limitation Act,. 1908 provides six oaths time for moving an application for pyment of the decretal amount in instalments and such period is to commence for the date of decree. It was pointed out that the decree was passed on 3-3-2006 whereas the instant application was proved on 4-4-2007. Consequently the application is barred by almost five months. It is further contended that the instalments proposed if allowed, would frustrate the decree and it would permit the judgment debtors to make the payment of decretal amount in almost eight years.

4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

5. Article 175 of the Limitation Act, 1908 provides limitation for six months for filing an application for payment of decretal amount in instalment whereas the instant application has been moved after eleven months without any application for condonation of delay. The application not only appears to be hopelessly barred by time but if allowed would virtually frustrate the decree by allowed its payment in morethan eight years and looking at the rate of inflation such request cannot be allowed. In f the circumstances and for what has been discussed above listed application at Serial No.1 is dismissed.

6. Asa result, the application, listed at Serial No.2, is also dismissed being infructuous.

7. Office is directed to issue writ of attachment.

8. M.B.A./F-10/K ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.