SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER MULTAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MULTAN and others vs HABIB BANK Ltd. and another
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of a civil revision by the High Court, which had upheld the rejection of their application for the execution of a money decree as time-barred. The core legal question concerned the applicable period of limitation for filing the execution application in light of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 and Article 182 of the Limitation Act, and whether a period of six years applied. The Supreme Court noted that a similar question had been addressed in a previous case and held that the matters raised required formal examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to consider the contentions regarding the correct interpretation and computation of the limitation period for executing decrees.
- What is the applicable period of limitation for filing an application for the execution of a money decree?
- Does the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 affect the limitation period previously governed by Article 182 of the Limitation Act?
- Whether an execution application filed within six years is barred by time under the relevant statutory provisions?
- Article 182, Limitation Act 1908
- Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.---Leave to appeal has been sought by the petitioners; against the dismissal by the High Court, of a Civil Revision. It had arisen out of rejection of petitioners application for execution of a money decree as time-barred.
2. ' Learned counsel has contended that when due effect is given to the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 removing the hardship created by Article 182 of the Limitation Act, the same could not be re- introduced through any so-called rule of interpretation. According to him on the day the application for execution was filed--26-6-1983, the period of limitation for filing the same, was six years. And the same being within the said period, was not time-barred. We have noticed that a similar question raised before this Court in another case was answered in Mirza Akbar All v.
3. National Bank of Pakistan 1985 SCM R 190. The effect thereof as also the questions raised by the learned counsel and those raised in this petition require examination. Leave to appeal, accordingly, is granted.