Delay in Decree Execution: Legal Complexities and Judicial Guidance.
 |
Delay in Decree Execution: Legal Complexities and Judicial Guidance |
ڈگری کے نفاذ میں تاخیر: قانونی پیچیدگیاں اور عدالتی رہنمائی
پس منظر:
تیسری درخواست:
عدالتی جائزہ:
1. مدت کی پابندی کا اصول:
2. نئی درخواست یا پرانی درخواست کی بحالی؟
3. قبضے کے ثبوت کا معاملہ:
عدالتی فیصلہ:
نتیجہ:
قانونی رہنمائی:
Must read Judgement
PLD 2025 Lahore 286
Execution of a decree for possession and sanctioning of mutation---Computation of period of limitation---Exclusion of time during which proceedings were suspended---Revival of earlier executions petitions not decided through final order being continuation of proceedings---Scope---First and second execution petitions, which were filed within time, were consigned to record due to misunderstanding that the decree had been satisfied and for non-deposit of cost of warrant of Dakhal---Upon filing of third execution petition objection petition was filed by the petitioner raising objection as to its maintainability being barred by time, which was dismissed by the executing and appellate Courts Validity---Words 'fresh application had been used in S. 48(1), C.P.C., therefore, what was contemplated under this section by the words 'fresh application', was a substantive merely ancillary or incidental to a previous application, that was to say if the decree holder sought to set the Court into motion to take further proceedings in respect of an application already pending or where the application had been recorded or where the execution proceedings had been suspended by reasons of appeal or other proceedings, it would not be regarded as fresh application---Execution application was deemed to be pending so long as no final order disposing it judicially had been passed thereon---Subsequent application in such a case for execution would be deemed to be one merely for the continuation of the original proceedings---Where final judicial order terminating the execution petition had been passed on the application, such execution proceedings could not be revived and the subsequent application for execution would be regarded as fresh application and not one for revival and continuation of the original proceedings---Mere reports, in the "Warrant Dakhal' and 'Rapt Roznamcha Waqiati', that possession was given to the decree holders could not be taken as conclusive proof of the fact that the decree holders were put into physical possession of the suit land decreed in their favour till the decree holders admitted the said fact---Decree holders had not come to the court for some new or fresh relief rather they approached the executing court to get the relief given by High Court, thus, their third execution petition was just revival of their earlier execution petitions which were filed within time and consigned to record without satisfaction of the decree passed in their favour and the decree holders were pursuing their case since long and their decree was still unsatisfied---