KARAM HUSSAIN vs MUHAMMAD ASLAM KHAN
This matter concerns two petitions for leave to appeal against judgments of the High Court. In the first petition, the petitioner challenged the execution of a decree on the grounds of limitation, arguing it was time-barred. The Supreme Court, relying on the precedent established in Abdul Qayyum v. Ali Asghar Shah (1992 SCMR 241), rejected this contention and dismissed the petition, thereby affirming the lower court's decision regarding the execution of the decree. In the second petition, the petitioner sought leave to appeal on the basis that the lower courts had misread evidence regarding improvements made to the land, for which compensation was denied despite the evidence remaining unrebutted. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal in this second instance specifically to examine whether the petitioner is entitled to the costs of such improvements. Consequently, the Court stayed the execution proceedings pending the outcome of the appeal. The judgment clarifies the application of limitation principles to execution proceedings and acknowledges the necessity of reviewing evidence regarding compensation for land improvements.
- Is an application for execution of a decree barred by time if it fails to meet the statutory limitation period?
- Does the failure of lower courts to consider unrebutted evidence regarding land improvements warrant the granting of leave to appeal?
' ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.---Leave to appeal has been sought in these two petitions against the judgment of the High Court dated 8-6-1991 and dated 9-12-1990.
2. The objection raised before the. Courts below was that the application for execution of the decree filed by the decree-holder was barred by time. This objection of the petitioner did not prevail with the Courts.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of judgment of this Court in Abdul Qayyum v. Ali Asghar Shah 1992 SCMR 241 the point has been decided against the petitioner. As such, the petition is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused in Civil Petition No,183 of 1991.
4. In Civil Petition No,48 of 1991, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner produced evidence that he has made improvement on the land and that evidence has not been controverted by the respondent. The evidence of the petitioner remained unrebutted. The Courts below have misread the evidence on this score and have not granted the compensation.
5. Leave to appeal is granted in Civil Petition No,48 of 1991 to consider whether the petitioner is entitled to costs of improvement.
The execution proceedings are stayed. No security. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.