Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 144,151

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 144,151

Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 39

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------Ss. 144 & 151 ----Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) S.39---Application for restitution--- Reversal of decree--- Restoration of possession---Scope---Suit for cancellation for agreement to sell immovable property was decreed in favour of the plaintiff and possession was accordingly handed over to him---Subsequently appeal of defendant thereagaisnt was allowed, and application of the defendant under S.144, C.P.C. was allowed; and possession was restored to the defendant---Validity---Act of the court should not injure rights of any person and S.144 of C.P.C. was based on the same principle---Defendant had lost possession of the disputed property in execution of ex parte decree which was set aside by High Court on appeal, therefore, defendant was entitled to restoration of the possession of the same in accordance with law and parties were to be restored to the same position they were in prior to the decree---Any benefit received by a decree holder under a decree which had been reversed was refundable to the party entitled to such benefit by restoration---Section 144, C.P.C. was applicable irrespective of fact whether restoration had or had not been directed in the Appellate Court's decree---Restoration was a consequential relief on account of reversal of decree for the safe administration of justice---No illegality therefore existed in the impugned order---Revision was dismissed, in circumstances. (b) Administration of justice--- ----Act of the court should not injure rights of any party. Mian Muhammad Abbas for Petitioner. ORDER ABDUS SATTAR ASGHAR, J.--- This Civil Revision under section 115 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 is directed against the order dated 26-1-2013 passed by learned Civil Judge Lahore on an application under section 144 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 lodged by Kaukab Waseem respondent. 2. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is against law and facts, without jurisdiction, untenable and liable to set aside. 3. Arguments heard. Record perused. 4. Allegedly petitioner being owner in possession of a house measuring 5 Marlas bearing No.52-E, Block-J-III Jauhar Town,…

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