| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2014 SLG 1824 2014 SLD 1824 2014 CLC 1529 |
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No.30640 of 2012, heard on 7-05-2014.
ATIR MAHMOOD, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Writ Petition No.30640 of 2012, heard on 7-05-2014.
ATIR MAHMOOD, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
GHULAM ALI
VS
Mst. FATIMA BIBI and others
Law:
Section:
West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)-------S. 5, Sched.---Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S.43---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---Suit for recovery of maintenance allowance---Attachment of property of the surety--- Scope--- Execution petition--- Auction-purchaser--- Deposit of decretal amount in lieu of setting aside auction proceedings---Bona fide purchaser---Scope---Judgment-debtor did not appear in execution proceedings wherein surety submitted surety bond that he would pay the decretal amount---Executing Court attached the property of surety wherein auction-purchaser moved an application seeking permission to deposit decretal amount being bona fide purchaser but same was dismissed---Validity---Surety took responsibility for payment of decretal amount by submitting surety bond and got recorded his statement to such effect---Judgment-debtor did not appear and property of surety was attached and put to auction which was purchased by the auction-purchaser---Neither auction had been confirmed nor sale certificate was issued nor possession of property was handed over to the auction purchaser---Applicant was bona fide purchaser of disputed property without notice and was protected under S.43 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882---Revenue record was silent with regard to proceedings of the court---No bar existed with regard to purchase/transfer of property in question in favour of auction-purchaser---Surety was bound to pay the decretal amount to the extent only for which he gave surety---Surety could not be held responsible for decretal amount accumulated on account of non-payment of decretal amount by the -debtor---Applicant had stepped into shoes of surety by purchasing the property from him and he was responsible for the amount due against the surety only---Surety did not undertake to pay the future liability of -debtor rather he declared to pay the decretal amount against him at such time---Surety could not be held for future liability of debtor---Impugned order and passed by the courts below were not in accordance with law---Constitutional petition was accepted and impugned orders passed by the courts below were set…
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