Case Details

Citation(s)
2003 SLG 878 2003 SLD 878 2003 SCMR 436
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 328 of 1999, decided on 18th April, 2002. (On appeal from the. judgment of Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 3-3-1999 passed in C.R. 1253 of 1998)
SH. RIAZ AHMED, C.J., MIAN MUHAMMAD AJMAL AND MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, JJ
Naeem Sarwar, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellants. Malik Abdul Majid Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehr Khan Malik, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondents

MUHAMMAD NAZIR and another

VS

QAISER ALI KHAN and 4 others

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 148,O.XXI,R.10,2(2),48,151

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 185(2)

Law: Limitation Act, 1908

Section: 181

Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 12

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 148 & O. XXI, R.10---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.12--­Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.-185(2) ---Decree for specific performance of agreement to sell without fixing time for deposit of remaining sale price---Appellate Court dismissed appeal against decree, but did not fix such time---Executing Court permitted decree-holders to deposit remaining sale price, which they deposited with a shortfall of Rs.100 under mistake---Decree-holders on coming to know about such mistake made application for permission to deposit deficient amount, but same was dismissed by Executing Court with observation that they had lost right of execution of decree due to their own conduct---High Court accepted revision petition filed by decree-holders---Validity---Trial Court or Appellate Court had not fixed time for deposit of remaining sale price, thus, non-deposit thereof till decision of first appeal would have no legal consequences---No condition of dismissal of suit for non-deposit or short deposit of remaining sale price within a specified time had been attached by Trial Court in original decree or by Appellate Court in appeal against decree---Executing Court in such circumstances would be competent to grant time for short deposit, if any and would not allow to defeat the fruit of decree for such reason--­Default of short deposit of Rs.100 was not wilful or in violation of any order of the Court---Grant of permission to deposit the less amount of Rs.100 by enlarging the time under S.148, C.P.C., by Executing Court would be the proper exercise of discretion---Executing Court had failed to exercise its discretion in proper manner---Supreme Court dismissed petition for leave to appeal in circumstances. Shah Wali v. Ghulam Din PLD 1966 SC 983; Shah Muhammad Khan v. Allah Diwaya PLD 1961 Lah. 743; Muhammad Afzal v. Fazal-ul­Haq PLD 1971 SC 162; Hadayat Ullah v. Murad Ali, PLD 1972 SC 69 and Said Alain Shah v. Jana PLD 1991 SC 360 ref. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----Ss. 2(2) & 48---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 181---Decree--­Pendency of appeal or revision against decree---Starting point of limitation for…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492