' TARIQ PARVEZ, J.---The appellant Bank, brought a suit for the recovery of Rs,6,14,596 against predecessor of respondents 1-A to 1-H and 2-A to 2-H. The bases of the suit were, that loan facilities were advanced by the plaintiff-bank to one Zulfiqar in the year 1983. He, having failed to re-pay the same, a suit was instituted for the recovery of loan amount, with mark-up thereon in the Court of Special Judge Banking on 16-11-1991. The notices were issued to the defendant of the suit, to appear and obtained leave of the Court to defend the suit. The defendants Nos.1 and 2, in the suit filed aforesaid application on 30-12-1991, and the next date was fixed as 30-9-1992 on which date the defendants and their counsel were absent, therefore, an ex parte decree-was passed in favour of the appellant bank.
2. On 13-10-1992 an application for setting aside ex parte decree was filed. The said application was contested and remained pending adjudication for about 4 years, when finally, the application was dismissed on 13-3-1996 by the Special Judge Banking.
3. Thereafter, the appellant bank (decree holder) filed an application for the execution of the decree against the defendants in the suit. The learned Special Judge Banking on 6-5-1996 rejected the application on the ground of being time-barred. Hence this petition.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the time for filing an execution petition under Article 181 of Limitation Act, 1908 is fixed 3 years and although, originally the decree was passed on 30-9-1992 but by virtue of application for setting aside ex parte decree filed by the predecessor of the defendants in the suit, the decree-holder bank did not file petition for the execution of the decree, as the decree once again has become sub judice and the matter remained pending before the Special Judge Banking, who was not only the trial Court but also executing Court. It was submitted that the learned Special Judge Banking was wrong to make reference to section 48, C.P.C., which prescribes that maximum period of limitation is 6 years.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that the decree was passed as back on 30-9-1992 and the execution application was filed on 24-4-1996 as such was hit by Article 181 of the Limitation Act, being filed after expiration of 3 years. Learned counsel also referred to section 48, of C.P.C., and submitted that once the decree was passed the execution application should have been made within the prescribed time and the period as specified under section 48, C.P.C., would be available to the appellants (decree-holders) only if they file second application for the execution provided there was an application earlier filed. Hence, in this view the execution petition was time-barred.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. There is no cavil in the provision that the time limit for making petition for execution is 3 years, as provided under Article 181 of Limitation Act.
7. The present respondents have no locus standi, in this appeal to oppose it because, when the application for setting aside of ex parte decree was rejected by the trial Court, they did not challenge the said order, hence, the decree passed by the trial Court has become final, subject of course to the question of limitation, in respect of its execution which matter, is now between the trial Court and the decree-holder bank.
1998. The appellant bank was justified under the circumstances in not filing the execution petition as the decree passed on 30-9-1996 became sub judice because of application filed by the successor of judgment-debtor. The application for setting aside ex parte decree was rejected on 13-3-1996 and, thereafter, the appellant bank has filed the execution petition which is well within time. As such, the order of the learned executing Judge, dated 6-5-1996 is set aside and he is directed to proceed with the execution petition already filed before him.