Case Details

Citation(s)
2017 SLG 2334 2017 SLD 2334 2017 MLD 854
Peshawar High Court
C.R. No. 145-D of 2015, decided & hearing on 29-2-2016.
MUHAMMAD GHAZANFER KHAN, JUSTICE
Haji Salim Nawaz Awan for Petitioner. Muhammad Sajid Shahzad for
Respondent.

MUHAMMAD NAWAZ

VS

MUHAMMAD RAMZAN

Law:

Section:

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 47---Decree, execution of---Joint property---Decree holder, not being sole owner, whether could execute decree in joint property---Plea that without proper partition, actual possession could not be given to the decree holder, could not hold the field in the present case, as such plea could only be taken by a co-owner if a decree had been passed against co-owner---Judgment debtor/objector, in the present case, had been found to be encroacher by court of competent jurisdiction and said order had attained finality---Decree holder could not be deprived from fruits of a decree on lame excuses---Judgment debtor/objector was in the knowledge of the order even otherwise debtor could not take benefit of his own misdeeds for condonation of delay---Even if appellate court had resorted to deciding appeal on merits, of appellate court would have been the same as objections taken by objector were such which had already been adjudicated upon by Trial Court---Revision was dismissed. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: MUHAMMAD GHAZANFER KHAN, JUSTICE:-- -.--- Through the instant revision petition, the petitioner Muhammad Nawaz has challenged the order dated 25.4.2015, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Paharpur, D.I.Khan, whereby his appeal against order dated 08.01.2015, passed by learned Civil Judge-I, Paharpur, D.I.Khan/Executing Court was dismissed. 2. Arguments of both the learned counsel for the parties heard and record gone through with their valuable assistance. 3. Present case was decided/decreed on 18.12.2012 and the execution was filed on 10.6.2014. The present petitioner/judgment debtor filed objection petition before the Executing Court which was dismissed and the appeal against the said judgment also met the same fate. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly argued that the decree holder is not the sole owner of the property and the property is still joint so, passage of decree and issuing warrant for actual possession is alien to law as without proper partition, actual possession cannot be handed over to the decree holder. 5. No doubt this proposition is according to law but is not applicable in this case, as…
🔒
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