MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J.--- Instant revision petition assailed orders dated 9.6.2004 and 11.4.2005, whereby objection petition filed by the petitioner and two others was dismissed by the executing Court and his appeal thereagainst was dismissed, respectively.-
2. Succinctly, relevant facts are that Sultan Khan filed 'a suit for partition, pending which parties entered into a compromise,' on the basis of which suit was decreed. Respondents were declared to be owners to the extent of 172 share in the joint property and rest of the half share was declared to be owned by Sultan Khan and Mst. Bakhat Begum. Consequently, Sultan Khan alienated his 1/4 share to. The respondents Bilal etc. And Mst. Bakhat Begum sold her 1/4 share to Fateh Khan. The transferees stepped into the shoes of the original co-owners. Decree passed in the partition suit was put to execution wherein petitioner filed an objection petition averring that execution petition being beyond period of three years, was barred by limitation, the executing Court dismissed the objection petition after hearing the parties, vide order dated 9.6.2004.
3. Petitioner aggrieved of dismissal of his objection petition filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, but remained unsuccessful as the same was dismissed on 11.4.2005. He has now filed instant petition for setting aside concurrent orders of the two Courts below.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Article 181 of the Limitation Act, 1908 provided three years' limitation for filing an execution petition and the same having been filed beyond this period could not have been put to process. He further submitted that period of limitation started running from the date of final decree in the partition suit i.e. 7.6.1995 and the execution petition having been filed on 8.2.2002 was apparently barred by limitation. Besides relying on Article 181 of the Limitation Act, judgments in the cases of Secretary to Government of N.-W,F.P., Forest Department, Peshawar and another Vs. Abdur Rehman and two others (2000 CLC 1047), Habib Bank Ltd. Vs. Remifar (Pakistan) Ltd. And 5 others (PLD 2000 Kar. 46) and Muhammad Bakhsh and 2 others Vs. Muhammad ,Bakhsh and 9 others ,(1981 CLC 98) were .Relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his arguments.
5. I have minutely considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and have examined the record, appended herewith. Article 181 of the Limitation Act, 1908 would apply in cases in 'which limitation is not provided elsewhere in the schedule attached to the Act (ibid) or by Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Since the limitation for execution petition is specifically provided by Section 48, CPC, reference to Article 181 of the Limitation Act is misplaced. In Section 48(1), CPC, as amended through Ordinance XII of 1972, limitation for filing an execution petition was prescribed as six years from the date of decree sought to be executed. In view of clear provisions of law, controlling limitation for filing execution petition, the objection petition by the petitioner was rightly turned down by the two Courts below, without committing any illegality/irregularity. Judgments relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner have no applicability to the facts of the case in hand, judgment in the case of Muhammad Bakhsh and 2 others (supra) fixed a point' for starting of limitation which is not disputed in the case under .,determination. Similarly judgment in the case of Habib Bank Ltd. (supra) was given under Section 6 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979. Since the petitioner became owner through purchase, he stepped into the shoes of his vendor and thus was bound by the decree dated 7.6.1995 Petitioner cannot escape from the process of execution of the decree.
6. For the reasons noted above, the impugned orders are strictly in accordance with law and none of the Courts committed any illegality amenable to revisionat. jurisdiction of this Court.. This petition consequently, having no merit, is dismissed in limine.
Civil Revision ,.