1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.--This appeal by leave is directed against the judgment of a learned Judges of Baluchistan High Court dated 17-10-1981 by which a Revision Application filed by respondents was allowed, and appellants' application for execution of the decree dated 8-12-1960 passed in their favour was dismissed as barred by the.
2. Facts briefly stated are that a decree in appellants favour was passed on 8-12-1960 by the Additional District Magistrate and Assistant Political Agent, Quetta for possession of suit-property under section 8 of the Frontier Crimes Regulation, 1901. Appellants applied for execution of the decree on 3-1-1961. Respondents objections against the execution of the decree were dismissed on 16-9-1963 and revision, application filed by them was also dismissed by the Commissioner, Quetta on 7-1-1964. Respondents then challenged these orders in a Constitutional Petition in the former High Court of West Pakistan and the High Court lay an order, dated 4-2-1964 stayed the execution of the decree and this order remained in force up to 19-9-1966 when the Constitution Petition was dismissed. A Letters Patent Appeal filed by respondents was also dismissed by the High Court on 27-9-1966 and the stay of the execution of the decree directed by the Letters Patent Bench of the High Court also lapsed on that day.
3. Thereafter on 30-9-1966 appellants' applied to the Additional District Magistrate F.C.R. For possession of the suit land in consequence of the order of execution passed in their favour earlier.
4. An order in appellants' favour was passed on 4-10-1966, but to days afterwards, that is, on 6-10- 1966 respondents succeeded in obtaining an interim order from Senior Civil Judge Quetta in a civil suit filed by them by which maintenance of status quo with regard to the suit property was directed. This interim order was confirmed by the Senior Civil Judge on 14-10-1966. Appellants then challenged this order in appeal and in these proceedings a question arose whether after-the repeal of the Frontier Crimes Regulation, 1901 under Notification, dated 17-12-1964 the execution application in respect of the decree passed under the F.C.R. Or it was to be filed in the ordinary civil Court. In this regard appellants agreed with the respondents that the execution application in respect of the decree passed in their favour will be filed in a civil Court rather than the previous one filed before the Additional Deputy Commissioner F.C.R. Be continued. The appeal filed by the appellants was finally disposed of by the learned District Judge by consent of the parties by the order, dated 28-2-1967 in these words: "I have heard the Advocates. The appeal is disposed of by the following consent order, vacating the order of the lower Court:- The appellant will not execute the decree, which is the subject---matter of the suit till the decision of the suit, and the appellant will move the civil Court for execution of that decree and not the authorities on executive side. He will not try to have possession of the property or get it demolished; except in due course of law. The trial Court will expedite the case."
5. The suit filed by the respondents was finally dismissed by the learned Senior Civil Judge on 27-3- 1976 but the respondents again filed an appeal and succeeded in obtaining an order, dated 17-4- 1976 from the District Judge directing maintenance of status quo with regard to the property. The appeal was finally dismissed on 25-2-1977 with the result that the interim order of maintenance of status quo also lapsed on that day. Respondents however again filed a Revision Application against this order in the High Court on 26-5-1977 and again succeeded in obtaining an order of stay of the execution of the decree on the same day, but finally the revision application was also dismissed on 16-5-1979.
6. Appellants thereafter filed execution application in the civil Court on 19-8-1979 in terms of the order of the District Judge, dated 28-2-1967. Respondents again filed objections to the execution application on 5-9-1979. These objections were rejected by the Civil Judge, Quetta by the order, dated 14-9-1981 and the appeal filed by the respondents against this order was dismissed by the District Judge by the judgment dated 10-3-1981. The High Court of Baluchistan however on a Revision Application at the instance of the respondents set aside the order of the Civil Judge, dated 14-9-1981 as well as the judgment of the District Judge, dated 10-3-1981 holding that the Execution Application filed by the appellants on 19-8-1979 was barred by the for the reasons which may be stated herein: "Section 48 of the Civil Procedure Code prescribed a limit for fresh application for execution while Article 181 or the Limitation Act prescribes limitation for any application for execution of the decrees made successfully in the Court. In the present case the for the purpose of section 48 of the C.P.C.
7. Would start from the date of the decree and not from the date of withdrawal of Frontier Crimes Regulation i.e. 17-12-1964. It is contended on behalf of the respondents that the decree-holders were unable to make any application for execution of decree after withdrawal of the Frontier Crimes Regulation on 17-12-1964. The learned counsel of the respondents had given the date of various suits and petitions before the Court in respect of the decree. It is contended that first application for execution filed on 3-1-1961 before the Deputy Commissioner and to which the petitioner filed objection on 4-7-1961 which was referred to the counsel of Elders Commissioner rejected the objection on 16-9-1963 after receiving findings of the counsel of Elders and against this rejection revision was filed before the Commissioner which was dismissed on 7-1-1964. The petitioner then filed a writ petition on 3-2-1964 which was dismissed on 19-9-1966 and L.P.A. Was dismissed on 27-9-1966. A civil Suit was filed on 4-10-1966 which was decided by the Civil Judge on 17-3-1976. An appeal filed in the District Court was dismissed on 25-2-1977. Second appeal filed in the High Court was dismissed on 16-5-1979. The respondents have not been able to show that on filing the writ petition in the High Court on 3-2-1964 by the petitioners, the respondents were restrained from making an application for execution. They could file application for execution on withdrawal of the Frontier Crimes Regulation as there seems to have been no obstruction in their way. On 4-10-1966 the civil Court granted an injunction restraining the petitioners from disturbing possession of the respondent-decree-holders. Strictly speaking they were not restrained from making an application for execution. Even if it is assumed that they were not restrained, the disability came into existence when injunction was granted by the civil Court and continued to exist till second appeal was decided on 16-5-1979, by the High Court. The present application which is pending before the civil Court was filed on 19-8-1979 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge. This period from 16-5-1979 to 19-8-1979 has not been accounted for by the respondents and no explanation has come forward. The decree-holders should have been vigilant as to their rights and should have been able to account for each and every day of the delay. They made no effort in this behalf. The application for execution dated 19-8-1979 or 22-9-1979 would be barred under section 48, C.P.C. I, therefore, accept the petition and set aside the orders of the Courts below."
8. Leave to appeal was however granted by this Court in order to examine the plea raised by the appellants that since the decree sought to be executed was passed on 8-12-1960 the provisions of unemended section 48 by which the period of limitation prescribed is 12 years is applicable, and that in any case, in view of the fact that the civil Court as well as the High Court had passed several orders from the to the restraining the appellants from executing the decree, the period covered by these orders is to be excluded by virtue of the provisions of section 15 of the Limitation Act for the purpose of computation of the period of limitation.
9. It is the admitted position of the parties that the original applica--tion for execution of the decree passed in appellants' favour was made before the Additional District Magistrate F.C.R. On 2-1-1961, and it could not be executed due to the orders passed by the civil Court and the High Court from the to the staying the execution of the decree. A question arose in these proceedings whether after the withdrawal of the Frontier Crimes Regulation, the decree passed in appellants, favour under section 8 of the Frontier Crimes Regulation could be executed under the provisions of Frontier Crimes Regulation Act or under the normal procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure. This controversy was finally settled, by consent of the parties, and it was agreed by both the parties that the decree will be executed through the civil Court, and a consent order in this behalf was passed by the District Judge on 28-2-1967 which has been reproduced above. The suit it which this order was passed was finally dismissed in appellants favour on 27-3-1976, but again the appellate Court stayed the execution of the decree by the order, dated 17-4-1976 which lasted up to 25-2-1977.
10. Admittedly within a short period thereafter the High Court in revision application at respondents" instance stayed the execution by the order, dated 26-5-1977, and this order continued to remain in force till 16-5-1979 when the Revision Application was dismissed. Appellants thereafter filed an application for execution of the decree on 18-5-1979 in the civil Court. It will be thus noticed that it was the first application filed by respondents before the civil Court in terms of the order of the District Judge passed by consent of the parties that the earlier execution proceedings under the provisions of the Frontier Crimes Regulation will not be continued, but a fresh application for execution of the decree would be filed by the appellants in an ordinary civil Court of law. The first opportunity for filing the application in terms of the aforesaid order arose on 27-3-1976, but within about 21 days the District Judge on appeal allowed respondents' application for stay of execution proceedings. After the dismissal of the appeal by the District Judge but before the appellants could file the execution application, the High Court in revision, passed an order staying the execution proceedings. This order continued up to 16-5-1979. The period for which the district Court and the High Court stayed the proceedings for execution of decree is to be excluded under the provisions of section 15 of the Limitation Act. The the would start running against the appellants on 27-3-1976 in terms of the consent order, dated 28-2-1967. But their effort to file execution application within the period of limitation was thwarted every the by the respondents when they obtained orders for stay of execution proceedings. The language of such like orders has to be construed literally in favour of a decree-holder. The appellants could not even file the application due to stay orders. Thus by grant of the benefit of the provisions of section 15 of the Limitation Act the execution application filed by appellants on 19-8-1979 could be held to be well within the under section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
11. For these reasons, there is no escape from the conclusion that the execution application filed by the appellants was well within the and on this view of the case the impugned judgment passed of the High Court is set aside and the judgment passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge directing execution of the decree as well as the appellate judgment of the District Judge, dated 10-3-1981 are upheld. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the appellants shall be entitled to costs throughout from the stage of the execution application.