Case Details

Citation(s)
2016 SLG 2383 2016 SLD 2383 2016 PLD 527
Sindh High Court
Criminal Acquittal Appeal No. 30 of 2014, decided on 15th March, 2016. Date of hearing: 25th January, 2016.
IRFAN SAADAT KHAN AND ZAFAR AHMED RAJPUT, JUSTICEJ
Nemo for Appellant. M. Ishtiaq Ahmed Memon for
Respondents.

KARACHI WATER AND SEWERAGE BOARD through Managing Director

VS

Messrs FAMOUS ART PRINTERS (PVT) LTD. through Director and another

Law:

Section:

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--------- ----------S. 47---------Executing Court, duties of---------Words "all questions arising" occurring in S.47,C.P.C:---------Object, scope and purpose---------Court executing decree is empowered under S.47, C.P.C., to determine all questions relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of decree---------Object of S.47, C.P.C., is not only to afford relief to parties in matters arising out of execution of decree but also to curtail multiplicity of litigation and hardship to be faced by parties---------Words 'all questions arising' means questions relating to or effecting rights of parties to the suit---------Question of payability when not specifically mentioned in the decree is the question to be decided by Executing Court---------Executing Court is vested with power to interpret decree in light of pleadings and s of the Court. Muhammad Afzal and another v. Pakistan International Airlines Corporation 2006 YLR 3074 rel. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-- ---------Ss. 34 & 47---------Decree, interpretation of---------Executing Court---------Powers---------Executing Court, in the present case, included amount of markup in the decretal amount--------- Judgment- debtor raised the plea that Executing Court could not include any amount in decretal amount as it would tantamount to changing the decree---------Validity---------Interest from date of suit was ordinarily granted in view of S.34, C.P.C:---------Trial Court awarded interest to decree-holders at the rate of 14% per annum, therefore decree was not without any interest on principal amount---------Date from which interest was to be paid was not itemized in the decree thus question had arisen before Executing Court as to from which date decree-holders were entitled to the interest---------Executing Court had rightly observed the fact that decree-holders in their pleadings had claimed for the interest from date of suit and there was nothing in the circumstances of the case to show that they were not entitled to the same which due to inadvertence could not be specified in the decree---------Such order of Executing Court could not be termed as amendment in decree…
🔒
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