Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 100,115,47,104(1)(2),O.XLIII

Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 12

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----Ss. 100, 115, 47, 104(1) (2) & O. XLIII---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.12---Suit for specific performance---Second appeal/revision against order passed in appeal under S. 104, C.P.C.---Maintainability---Suit was decreed in terms of the compromise---Execution petition was filed in which objections were submitted which were turned down by the executing court---Appeal under S. 104 of C.P.C., in which order passed in execution petition was assailed, was dismissed by the Appellate Court---Validity---Order passed in execution petition did not fall within the definition of decree under S. 2(2) of C.P.C. but that could be challenged in appeal which was expressly allowed by S. 104 or O. XLIII of C.P.C.---Order passed in appeal under S.104 of C.P.C. was not appealable as subsection (2) of S. 104, C.P.C. imposed bar on appeal against order passed by Appellate Court---Deductions of amounts shown by the appellants/ debtors in their objections to execution application were not part and parcel of the terms and conditions of the compromise decree---Both the lower courts had rightly turned down the objections raised by the appellants to execution of decree as the executing court had no power to go beyond the terms and conditions of compromise decree---No material had been brought on record to prima facie show that jurisdiction exercised by the courts below was contrary to law or they had materially exercised the jurisdiction illegally or unlawfully---Not only the present appeal but even revision was not maintainable against the impugned order---Appeal was dismissed by the High Court. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 115---Revisional jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---Revisional court had limited scope to examine and consider if subordinate court appeared to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Muhammad Afzal v. Pakistan International Airlines Corporation 2006 YLR 3074 distinguished. Mian Mushtaq Ahmed for Appellants. Sardar Sher Afzal for…

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