| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2025 SLG 4177 2025 SLD 4177 = 2025 CLC 858 |
Sindh High Court
Constitutional Petition No. D-2116 of 2019, decided on 8th April, 2022.
Before Irfan Saadat Khan and Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam, JJ
Masjood Ali Memom for Petitioners. Altaf Ahmed Sahar for
Respondent No. 1. Miran Muhammad Shah, Additional Advocate General Sindh for
Respondent No. 2.
Constitutional Petition No. D-2116 of 2019, decided on 8th April, 2022.
Before Irfan Saadat Khan and Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam, JJ
Masjood Ali Memom for Petitioners. Altaf Ahmed Sahar for
Respondent No. 1. Miran Muhammad Shah, Additional Advocate General Sindh for
Respondent No. 2.
Mrs. NIGHAT NAEEM and others ---Petitioners
VERSUS
KARACHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and others ---Respondents
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 47
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 199,24
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------S. 47---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Execution of decree---ExecutingCourt---Powers---Plaintiffs filed a suit challenging the action of the defendant (Karachi Development Authority/KDA) cancelling the plots allotted to them (plaintiffs), which suit was decreed as prayed for and was maintained upto High Court---Later, the Executing Court declined the plea of execution petitioners (Plaintiffs/decree-holders) for restoration of possession in respect of the suitproperty---Only factor which weighed with the Executing Court for disallowing the prayer of possession of the petitioners, was that specific plea of possession was not sought in the suit, and the Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree--Revisional Court maintained the said order---Validity---High Court being a court of record with powers of supervision and correction of the orders passed by the inferior Courts cannot be said to be helpless in appropriate cases to pass such orders in order to do substantial justice and advance the cause of justice---In the present case, both the Courts had failed to observe or consider that the petitioners/plaintiffs were successful throughout in their prolonged and exhausting litigation spreading over three decades with the respondent/KDA, up to this (High) Court---Judgment and decree was handed down after a full dress trial, which had its own value, giving birth to right and interest in favour of decree holders---In such circumstances, if the relief of possession would have been given, it could not be said that the Executing Court had travelled beyond the judgment and decree--Secondly, in terms of S. 47 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 , an Executing Court is empowered to decide all questions relating to the execution---Thirdly, an implied objective of law is to ensure an orderly behaviour in a society and if on one hand some act is left unattended on the basis of certain technicalities and on the other hand a victim of wrongful act is left to run from pillar to post, then in due course of time, an orderly system of a society would be diminished and will be replaced by a disorderly and intolerant…