' Saz Gul respondent No,1 filed suit for declaration, perpetual injunction and possession with regard to the property described in the heading of the plaint in the Court of Assistant Commissioner, Timargara, District Dir under PATA Regulation. The learned trial Court referred the case to Jirga. The Jirga Members recorded evidence of respondent No, 1/plaintiff and recommended that the decree be passed in his favour. Accordingly an ex parte decree was passed in his favour vide judgment and decree dated 11-5-1991.
2. Having come to know about the ex parte decree, the petitioner filed appeal in the Court of learned Additional Commissioner which was dismissed vide judgment/decree dated 2-12-1996. He filed revision before the learned Additional Secretary Home, which was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 13-2-2001.
3. Respondent No,1, thereafter, filed execution petition in the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge/Aala Illaqa Qazi, Dir at Timargara on 17-11-2001. Petitioner filed objection petition to the effect that the execution petition was barred by time, hence be dismissed. The learned Senior Civil Judge/Executing Court dismissed the execution petition vide judgment/order dated 20-6-2002.
Saz Gul respondent No,1 filed appeal in the Court of learned District Judge/Zilla Qazi, Dir at Timargara, which was allowed vide judgment/order dated 25-3-2003 and the case was remanded back to the learned Executing Court for executing the decree passed in favour of Saz Gul. Being not satisfied with the judgment/order passed by the learned Appellate Court, the petitioner has filed revision petition in hand.
4. Mr. Hazrat Said, Advocate the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the learned trial Court had passed ex parte decree against the petitioner and respondents Nos.2 to 4. Their absence was not intentional but was due to the `movement' which had been started in the name of "Tahreek-e-Nifaz-e-Shariat Muhammadi" and due to the strike and procession, the petitioners and respondents Nos.2 to 4 could not attend the Court when ex parte decree was passed against them.
5. It was also argued that the ex parte decree was passed on 11-5-1991, whereas the execution proceedings were filed on 17-11-2001, which was hopelessly barred by time. The learned Executing Court had appreciated the legal position, whereas the learned Appellate Court failed to appreciate the same.
6. On the other hand Mr. Mazullah Barkandi, Advocate the learned counsel for respondent No,1 on pre-admission notice argued that the execution petition filed by respondent No,1 was in time because after passage of ex parte decree on 11-5-1991, the petitioner filed appeal and revision before the Additional Commissioner and Secretary Home, N.-W.F.P. The revision petition was dismissed on 13-2-2001, whereas the execution petition was filed on 17-11-2001, which was within the period prescribed by the Limitation Act.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, annexed with the petition.
8. The question that requires consideration in this case is as to whether execution petition filed by respondent No,1 was barred by time or not. Answer to this question is in negative. The execution petition was within time. The admitted position in this case is that ex parte decree was passed by Assistant Commissioner, Timargara against the petitioner and respondents Nos.2 to 4 on 11-5-1991.
The petitioner filed appeal in the Court of learned Additional Commissioner, which was dismissed vide judgment/decree dated 2-12-1996. Thereafter, he filed revision petition before the Secretary Home, N.-W.F.P. Which too was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 13-2-2001. After the dismissal of the revision petition, respondent No,1 filed execution petition in the Court of learned Civil Judge/Illaqa Qazi on 17-11-2001, which as mentioned above, was in time.
' Similar question came up for hearing in Maulvi Abdul Qayyum v. Syed Ali Asghar Shah and `5 others 1992 SCM R 241 in which it was held:-- "The law with regard to starting point of limitation in case of appeal or revision, if filed, would be the date of decision of the Appellate Court or revisional Court."
' Likewise in United Bank Limited v. Messrs Victory Engineering Company, S.I.E., Abbottabad through Managing Partner and 3 others 1998 CLC 690, in which case ex parte decree was passed on 3-9- 1992. Application for setting aside ex parte decree was filed on 13-10-1992, which was dismissed by the trial Court on 13-3-1996. The decree-holder of the said case filed execution petition on 24-4- 1996, which was dismissed being barred by time vide order dated 6-5-1996. This Court while accepting the appeal filed by the decree-holder held that since the application for setting aside ex parte decree remained pending for 4 years and was dismissed on 13-3-1996, therefore, the decree- holder was justified in not filing execution application earlier. The execution petition filed by the decree-holder in said case was held to be well within time.
9. Similarly in case Muhammad Umar Gul v. Ikramullah Khan 1997 M LD 1917 it was held:-- "When a party approaches the Honourable Supreme Court by . Challenging the judgment and decree of the High Court under the Constitutional jurisdiction of the Honourable Supreme Court, in this respect, partakes of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court or in other words the appellate jurisdiction by an Appellate Court and it would be Court of last instance, that is the Supreme Court which passes the decree and only that decree can be executed, irrespective of the fact that the decree of the lower Courts is affirmed, reversed or modified. Thus the findings of the two Courts below are not open to any interference and they have correctly held that the execution petition which has been filed within a period of three years from the date of decision given by the Honourable Supreme Court was within time."
' Same view was taken in Mst. Naziran Bibi and another v. Mst. Noor Begum 1997 CLC 1479 and Nagendra Nath Dey and another v. Suresh Chandra Dey and others AIR 1932 PC 165.
' Keeping in view the dicta laid down in the above mentioned judgments I am clear in my mind that the judgment/ order passed by the learned Appellate Court was in accordance with law, hence needs no interference. Resultantly, the revision petition in hand is dismissed in limine.