| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2023 SLG 895 2023 SLD 895 2023 MLD 469 |
Sindh High Court, Hyderabad Bench
Criminal Jail Appeal No. D-122 and Confirmation Case No. 25 of 2016, decided on 14th April, 2021. Date of hearing: 6th April, 2021.
Before Naimatullah Phulpoto and Kausar Sultana Hussain, JJ
Omparkash H. Karmani for Appellant. Shahzado Saleem Nahiyoon, D.P.G. for the State.
Criminal Jail Appeal No. D-122 and Confirmation Case No. 25 of 2016, decided on 14th April, 2021. Date of hearing: 6th April, 2021.
Before Naimatullah Phulpoto and Kausar Sultana Hussain, JJ
Omparkash H. Karmani for Appellant. Shahzado Saleem Nahiyoon, D.P.G. for the State.
QADIR BUX-----Appellant
VERSUS
The STATE-----Respondent
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 14
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. XX, R. 14---Pre-emption decree---Execution proceedings---Limitation, computation of---Principle---Petitioner/decree holder filed suit for recovery of possession through pre-emption which was decreed in his favour---Execution petition filed by petitioner/decree holder was dismissed by Executing Court and Lower Appellate Court---Validity---Provision of O. XX, R. 14, C.P.C. were mandatory in nature---Decree for preemption was conditional degree where petitioner/decree holder was to fulfill two conditions---Firstly, petitioner/decree holder was to deposit in Court purchase money together with costs if any, decreed against him and secondly deposit was to be made on or before the date fixed by Court---Such provision of C.P.C. contained penal consequences of dismissal of suit in case petitioner/decree holder failed to make payment of purchase money in Court on or before the date fixed in decree---Once petitioner/decree holder performed his part of obligation as per directions contained in decree, then he automatically had become owner of the property and was entitled for possession---Concerned revenue authorities were bound to implement decree for the purpose of record of rights without any order from Executing Court---In case authorities concerned failed to do the needful, then petitioner/decree holder could file application for execution of decree--- In such circumstances, time for the purpose of limitation was to be reckoned from the date of default in performance of obligation by revenue authorities---High Court directed Executing Court to execute decree in favour of petitioner/decree holder and set aside s and orders passed by two Courts below---Revision was allowed accordingly. Maulvi Abdul Qayyum v. Sayed Asghar Ali Shah and 5 others 1992 SCMR 241; Dr. Niaz Muhammad Mann and others v. Sheikh Muhammad Ahmad and another 1988 SCMR 1016; Mst. Niaz Bibi through LRs v. Ghulam Mustafa and others PLD 2011 SC 520 and Nazar Hussain and another v. Member Board of Revenue (Judicial-III), Punjab and others 2019 MLD 1876 rel. JUDGMENT KAMRAN HAYAT MIANKHEL, J.---This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated…
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