Supreme Court of Pakistan
Muhammad Arif Chattha & others v. The learned Addl. District Judge,
Gujranwala & others.
Civil Petition No. 1540 of 2018
Mr. Justice Sardar Tariq Masood, Mr. Justice Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar
Naqvi, Mr. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail.
[ Ссылка ]
Facts: The first execution petition was dismissed due to non-prosecution. The petitioner
filed the second execution petition which was dismissed being barred by time as
well as being not maintainable.
Issues: i) What is the limitation for filing the execution application?
ii) Whether second execution application on same subject matter is maintainable?
Analysis i) According to sub section 1 clause (a) of section 48, no order for execution of a
decree shall be made upon any fresh application presented after the expiry of six
years from the date of the decree sought to be executed. At the same time, clause
(b) of section 48 provides that where the decree directs payment of money or the
delivery of any property to be made at a certain date or at recurring periods, the
limitation would run from the date of default in making the payment or delivery
of any property, in respect of which the applicant seeks execution. Thus, if a
decree, sought to be executed, is conditional, specifying the date for performance
of certain act(s), the period for execution of the same shall be reckoned from the
date of default of performance of the act(s), mentioned in the decree, instead of
counting from the date of passing of the decree. In other cases, second application
shall be filed within the period prescribed by section 48 of the CPC, which period
shall be counted from the date of the decree.
ii) Section 48 permits the decree holder to file number of subsequent
application(s), provided that the same is/are being filed within a period prescribed
therein; and subject to the principle of res judicata.When the earlier application
for execution of the decree filed by the respondents was though in time, but was
dismissed in default and for non-prosecution, rather than on merits, therefore, the
decree remained unsatisfied. Had the earlier application been disposed of on
merits, then of course, the subsequent applications would not have been
competent. Therefore, the subsequent application filed by the respondents was
quite competent.
Conclusion: i) Decree can be executed within the period prescribed by Article 181 of the
FORTNIGHTLY CASE LAW BULLETIN
11
Limitation Act. It is only after the first application is made; the subsequent
application can be filed within the period prescribed by section 48 of the CPC.
Where the decree directs payment of money or the delivery of any property to be
made at a certain date or at recurring periods, the limitation would run from the
date of default in making the payment or delivery of any property.
ii) Second execution application on same subject matter is maintainable subject to
limitation and principles of res-judicata.

свернуть