Case Details

Citation(s)
2011 SLG 424 2011 SLD 424 2011 PLD 561
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 7686 of 2009, decided on 17th-June, 2011
MUHAMMAD AMEER BHATTI, J
Muhammad Hanif Niazi for Petitioners. Firdous Butt, A.A.G. Mian Shah Abbas Iqbal for
Respondent

KAMAL HUSSAIN and others

VS

DISTRICT OFFICER (REVENUE), BHAKKAR and others

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: XXI,Rr9,10

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 199,187(2)

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----o. XXI, Rr.9 & 10-Constitution of Pakistan, Arts.199 & 187(2)---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Execution of decree---Powers of High Court---Scope---Petitioners had sought the implementation of the decree which was outcome of the civil suit---High Court, no doubt, under Art.199 of the Constitution had powers for issuance of directions to the authorities functioning within its territorial jurisdiction to perform their duties in accordance with law; and could also take the cognizance regarding implementation of the orders, decrees and directions, but that did not include matter of execution of the decree in the sense as provided under O.XXI, C.P.C.-Constitutional petition was not maintainable as on the face of it, detailed inquiry was required for the execution of the decree, which could only be held by exercising the powers as per procedure prescribed by the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. ORDER MUHAMMAD AMEER BHATTI, J.---Through this constitutional petition, the petitioners have sought the implementation of the decree which is the outcome of the civil suit. When the learned counsel was put the query when a procedure for the execution of the decree has been provided, how through this constitutional petition this court can assume the role of an executing court as it requires detailed inquiry 'and for that matter many disputed questions of fact have been raised which could be settled by the executing court, thus rendering this petition not maintainable. 2. Even otherwise learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents also disputed that as per settlement, land is already in the possession and ownership of the writ petitioner and disputed questions have been raised which, though, is legitimate right and this court in such like circumstance cannot play the role of an executing court. Although learned counsel for the petitioners in response to the query, referred to the judgments of the honourable Supreme Court reported as 1999 SCMR 2868 and of this court PLD 2008 Kar. 499 and stressed that this court while exercising the powers provided under Article 199 read with Article 187(2) Constitution of…
🔒
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