Ex-parte ڈگری کے نفاذ کی مدتِ معیاد: اسلام آباد ہائی کورٹ کا اہم فیصلہ
2026 CLC 1342 — اسلام آباد ہائی کورٹ
مقدمے کا پس منظر
اس مقدمے میں ایک کمپنی کے خلاف رقم کی وصولی کے دعوے میں Ex-parte ڈگری جاری ہوئی۔ کمپنی نے اس ڈگری کو ختم کرانے کے لیے درخواست دائر کی۔ ٹرائل کورٹ نے ڈگری ختم کرنے کا حکم اخراجات کی ادائیگی سے مشروط کیا، لیکن کمپنی نے مقررہ اخراجات ادا نہیں کیے۔ نتیجتاً Ex-parte ڈگری برقرار رہی۔
بعد میں ڈگری ہولڈر نے اس ڈگری پر عمل درآمد کے لیے Execution Petition دائر کی۔ کمپنی نے اعتراض کیا کہ یہ درخواست مقررہ مدت گزرنے کے بعد دائر کی گئی، اس لیے ناقابلِ سماعت ہے۔
درخواست زیرِ التوا ہونے سے مدتِ معیاد نہیں رکتی
ہائی کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ صرف Ex-parte ڈگری ختم کرانے کی درخواست دائر کرنے سے Execution کی مدتِ معیاد نہیں رکتی۔ جب تک عدالت ڈگری یا اس کے نفاذ پر باقاعدہ Stay Order جاری نہ کرے، مدتِ معیاد چلتی رہتی ہے۔
نئی ڈگری کا سابقہ ڈگری سے تعلق
ہائی کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ پہلی Ex-parte ڈگری ختم ہونے کے بعد اگر فوراً کوئی نئی قابلِ تنفیذ ڈگری جاری نہ ہو تو بعد میں جاری ہونے والی ڈگری پہلی ڈگری میں ضم نہیں ہوتی بلکہ وہ ایک الگ ڈگری ہوتی ہے۔ اس لیے دونوں ڈگریوں کو ملا کر مدتِ معیاد کا حساب نہیں کیا جا سکتا۔
اخراجات ادا نہ کرنے کا اثر
عدالت نے قرار دیا کہ چونکہ کمپنی نے ڈگری ختم کرنے کے لیے عائد کردہ اخراجات ادا نہیں کیے، اس لیے Ex-parte ڈگری حقیقتاً ختم ہی نہیں ہوئی اور وہ برقرار رہی۔ بعد کے حکم سے ڈگری ہولڈر کے لیے مدتِ معیاد کی کوئی نئی مدت شروع نہیں ہوئی۔
عدالت کا حتمی فیصلہ
ہائی کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ Ex-parte ڈگری کے نفاذ کے لیے دائر کی گئی Execution Petition مدتِ معیاد گزرنے کے بعد دائر ہوئی تھی۔ لہٰذا Execution Petition کو خارج کر دیا گیا۔
اہم اصول
بغیر Stay Order کے صرف ڈگری ختم کرانے کی درخواست زیرِ التوا ہونے سے Execution کی مدتِ معیاد نہیں رکتی۔
Must read Judgment.
2026 CLC 1342
[Islamabad]
Before Saman Rafat Imtiaz, J
Messrs R.P. CORPORATION (PVT) LIMITED through Director and another-Appellants
Versus
Syed ZAHEER HUSSAIN NAQVI and another-Respondents.
F.A.Os. Nos. 141 and 155 of 2024, decided on 4th February, 2025.
(a) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)---
----S.15 & First Sched., Art. 181---Computation of limitation period for execution proceedings---Pendency of proceedings seeking setting aside of ex parte judgment and decree-Effect---Time during which an application seeking setting a ig aside of a judgment and decree remains pending cannot be excluded from the computation of limitation period for the application for execution of such decree in the absence of a stay-Unless the institution or execution of a judgment and decree is stayed by an order, mere filing of an application for setting aside thereof does not operate as a stay.
(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---
Execution proceedings-Doctrine of merger-Applicability-Conditional order setting aside ex 5.47--Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 15 & First Sched., Art. 181--Suit for recovery of money--Ex parte judgment and decree---parte judgment judgment decr decree---Non-compliance with condition--Effect---Appellant/judgment-debtor company was aggrieved by execution of ex parte judgment and decree passed against it---Appellant/judgment-debtor contended that execution proceedings were barred by time-Validity---Trial Court, while setting aside ex parte judgment and decree, did not simultaneously pass fresh judgment and decree capable of execution--Effect of order setting aside ex parte judgment and decree was that no judgment and decree remained in the field--When Trial Court passed judgment and decree afresh, such judgment and decree did not absorb within itself the earlier ex parte judgment and decree nor were two combined-Earlier --Earlier ex parte judgment and decree had already ceased to exist--Fresh judgment and decree was wholly independent of the earlier ex parte judgment and decree (even if in substance the outcome remained the same), therefore, doctrine of merger was not attracted---Result of failure to pay cost was that the application for setting aside of ex parte judgment and decree was not allowed and consequently ex parte judgment and decree remained in the field, thus, question of restoring the same did not arise... Use of incorrect terminology did not change the effect of order recalling the setting aside of ex parte judgment and decree-No fresh period of limitation accrued in favour of respondent/decree-holder upon passing ng of of order order which merely recorded, in effect, that ex parte judgment and decree did not stand set aside on account of failure of appellant/judgment-debtor to pay cost in compliance with order passed by Trial Court---Respondent/decree-holder's execution petition filed in respect of ex parte judgment and decree was time-barred and was dismissed accordingly---Application was allowed accordingly.
Sher Dil Khan v. Baby Maimoona and others 2016 CLC 256; Khalid Latif v. United Bank Limited, Shah Alam Market, Lahore and 4 others 2006 CLD 885; United Bank Limited v. Messrs Victory Engineering Company, S.L.E. Abbottabad 1998 CLC 690; Muhammad Ilyas and others v. Muhammad and others, 1999 MLD 1432; Siraj Din and others v. Mst. Khurshid Begum and others 2007 SCMR 1792; Maulvi Abdul Qayyum v. Ali Asghar Shah 1992 SCMR 241; Sheikh Muhammad Ijaz v. Sheikh Muhammad Mushtaq 2014 MLD 646; Mst. Parveen v. Liaquat Hayat 2010 CLC 1395; Dr. Anwar Hussain Siddiqui v. Additional District Judge, Islamabad-West and others 2021 CLC 2005; Habib Bank Limited v. Muhammad Abbas and 2 others PLID 2001 SC 489; Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. Uttam Chand Jani 2001 PTD 1529; Messrs Hong Kong Chinese Restaurant, Main Boulevard Gulberg, Lahore v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6, Lahore and another 2002 PTD 1878; Bashir Ahmed Badini, D&SJ, Dera Allah Yar and others v. Honourable Chairman and Members of Administration Committee and Promotion Committee of Honourable High Court of Balochistan and others 2022 SCMR 448; Sahabzadi Mahrunisa v. Mst. Ghulam Surghran and another PLD 2016 SC 358; F.A. Khan v. The Government of Pakistan PLD 1964 SC 520: Sardar Begum and others v. Ch. Muhammad Saeed and and Saeed and another 2001 SCMR 1636; Haji Muhammad Yunis and others v. Mst. Farukh Sultan and others 2022 SCMR 1282 and Kh. Muhammad Fazil v. Mumtqz Munawar Khan Niazi, 2024 SCMR 1059 rel.
Fahad Khan Tareen for Appellant.
Zaheer Bashir Ansari for Respondent.