1. MALIK MANZOOR HUSSAIN, J. Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner has impugned the judgment dated 27.11.2014 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-VII, Abbottabad, and the judgment dated 05.05.2014 passed by the learned Executing Court / Judge Family Court, Abbottabad.
2. 2- Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the instant petition are that the respondent filed a suit for dissolution of marriage, monthly allowance for herself and for the minor etc. During trial both the parties appeared before the Court and submitted that through a private compromise the matter has been patched-up and case be decided in terms of compromise. In the light of statement of the parties the suit was disposed of through judgment dated 4.7.2008. As the petitioner failed to honour the terms and conditions of compromise, on the basis of which the decree was passed in favour of respondent, therefore, the respondent filed execution petition. During the course of execution proceedings, the parties again patched-up the matter and in the light of statement of decree holder the execution petition was filed on 19.03.2010. Thereafter again the petitioner being judgment debtor failed to honour the second compromise affected on 4.7.2008, therefore, a fresh execution application was filed on 31.03.2012. The petitioner filed an application on 30.07.2013 on the ground that this second execution application is filed beyond three years period prescribed under the Limitation Act for filing of the execution, therefore, the same be dismissed. The petition was resisted by the other side and through judgment dated 5.5.2014 the learned executing Court rejected the application of the petitioner / judgment debtor and he was directed to pay the outstanding amount. Feeling dissatisfied, the petitioner preferred appeal, which was dismissed through the impugned judgment dated 27.11.2014, hence, both the judgments of learned executing Court as well as the appellate court are assailed by invoking the constitutional jurisdition of this Court.
3. 3- The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that since the second petition was barred under Order XXIII CPC and also the time for filing of execution application is prescribed as three years, therefore, the decree passed vide judgment dated 4.7.2008 could not be executed by filing the belated application filed on 31.09.2012.
4. 4- Arguments heard and record perused.
5. 5- Perusal of initial decree dated 4.7.2008 reveals that the same was passed on the compromise deed Ex.PA. The terms of compromise were as under:- "1- that the defendant would pay Rs.10000/- as monthly maintenance allowance to the plaintiff; 2- that until the defendant constructed his own house he would keep her in a separate abode; 3- that he would give her 8 tolas gold; 4- that the defendant would not subject the plaintiff to maltreatment and cruelty in which eventuality he would pay the damages amounting to RS.100000/-;
5. that the plaintiff would live peacefully with the defendant and o his bidding. Further that she would not act contrary to his wishes.
6. In this behalf joint statement of the parties duly identified by each other was also recorded.
7. Needless to say that the terms of the compromise will be binding on the parties"
8. 6- The petitioner / judgment debtor failed to honour the terms of compromise, therefore, an execution petition was filed on 8.7.2009. During pendency of that proceedings, another compromise was effected between the parties, whereby the petitioner agreed to pay the maintenance allowance regularly and in the light of compromise the execution petition was disposed of vide order dated 19.03.2010. Again on 31.03.2012 the second execution application was filed by the respondent and this application was resisted by the petitioner on the ground of limitation.
9. 7- It is well settled by now that first application for execution of decree is to be governed by residuary Article 181 of the Limitation Act whereas the rest of the application made thereafter would be governed by section 48 CPC, whereby six years period of limitation has been prescribed. In the case in hand initially decree was passed on 4.7.2008. First application was filed on 8.7.2009, which was not pressed on the basis of the compromise on 19.03.2010 and the second application was filed on 31.03.2012. The period of limitation under section 48 CPC is six years from the passing of order on the earlier execution petition. Even otherwise the decree was passed on 4.7.2008 and the second execution petition was filed on 31.03.2012 was within limitation period of six years, prescribed under the law.
10. 8- Both the courts below have rightly turned down the application for rejection of execution petition filed by the petitioner / judgment debtor. No illegality or material irregularity has been found in the impugned judgment of both the courts below.
11. 9- In view of what has been observed above, this petition being devoid of any force is dismissed in limine.