Suit for specific performance is always suit for possession and as discussed earlier possession has already been with the decree-holder, therefore, decree holder does not require to file an execution petition for possession of the decretal land.

 Suit for specific performance is always suit for possession and as discussed earlier possession has already been with the decree-holder, therefore, decree holder does not require to file an execution petition for possession of the decretal land. Performance of the second part was upon the judgment-debtor and the decree holder can file execution petition on her refusal for the execution of the remaining part of the decree. There is no cavil with the proposition that one, who succeeds in a litigation, unjustly must not retain the benefit. It is the birth right of every citizen in an Islamic state to seek and obtain justice. The principles in our jurisprudence, governing just dispensation to do justice in accordance with the law shall have to be kept in view. After receipt of the consideration amount and delivery of possession it does not lie to the mouth of judgment debtor to question the maintainability of the execution petition on the point of limitation.

There is no cavil with the proposition that limitation for filing of an execution petition is not provided in limitation law and after enforcement of Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 (XII of 1972) first application for execution of a decree would be governed by residuary Article 181 of Limitation Act, 1908, which provides period of 03 years. From perusal of Article 181 of the Limitation Act, 1908 read with Section 48 of the C.P.C., it becomes clear that for filing first application for execution, 03 years limitation will apply and any subsequent application will be run by the limitation provided in Section 48, C.P.C. which prescribes period of six years. No other law is relevant or applicable.

Civil Revision No.1620 of 2016.
Mst. Iqbal Bibi, etc. Versus Additional District Judge, etc.
29-11-2022