ORDER SHEET

THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH CIRCUIT COURT AT LARKANA

C.P.No.S-254 of 2015

 

Date

               Order with signature of Judge

 

1.   For orders on Office Objections at "A".

2.   For orders on M.A.No.1044/2021 (151 CPC).

3.   For hearing of main case.

.-.-.-.-.

06.03.2023

Mr. Habibullah G. Ghouri, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Mr. Munwar Ali Abbasi, Assistant Advocate General, Sindh.

.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.

ZULFIQUAR ALI SANGI, J:-    Through listed constitutional petition, the petitioner has assailed order dated 18.12.2014, delivered by learned 4th Additional District Judge, Shikarpur, in Civil Revision No.08 of 2014, whereby the order dated 24.03.2014, passed by        2nd Senior Civil Judge, Shikarpur, in Execution Application No. Nil of 2014, was maintained.

2.       From the facts it appears that initially the suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner and others vide Judgment dated 07.04.2009 and Decree dated 18.04.2009 respectively and thereafter the Execution application alongwith an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed on 03.12.2013. Both the Courts below observed that the Execution Application being time barred was filed after lapse of four years as it was ought to have been filed within prescribed period of three years. Learned counsel submits that since the petitioner was declared Karo, therefore, he in order to save his life, could not file the Execution Application within time; however, no such proof in respect of such allegation had been furnished before learned trial Court as well as Revisional Court. 

3.       Record further reflects that the suit was decreed in favour of about 24 Plaintiffs and it was alleged that only the present petitioner did not approach the Court due to certain allegations and there was no evidence that as to why other plaintiffs also did not file the Execution Application within time. The time limit of filling Execution Application provided under Article 181 of the Limitation Act is three years and no application within three years apparently was filed. The reliance in this context is placed upon cases of Mehboob Khan v. Hassan Durrani (PLD 1990 S.C. 778), National Bank of Pakistan V. Mian Aziz-ud-din and 7 others (1996 SCMR 759) and House Building Finance Corporation of Pakistan v. Rana Muhammad Iqbal through L.Rs (2007 SCMR 1929). In that situation, learned Revisional Court has committed no illegality, upholding/maintaining the order of learned Trial/Executing Court. Consequently, the instant petition being devoid of merits is dismissed accordingly.

                    JUDGE           

 

 

 

 

          .