Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section:

Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)

Section:

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----0. XXI, R. 58(1), proviso---Objection to attachment of property in execution of decree filed after more than one year from the order of attachment, would fall within mischief of proviso to OXXI, R. 58(j), C.P.C.-- Objector through his father (the judgment-debtor) and their common counsel was definitely aware on specified date, if not earlier, that property in question, had been attached---Objection was thus, to have been filed immediately, unless objector was, for reasons beyond his control, prevented from doing so-- Objection to attachment having not been filed within one year from the knowledge of attachment, would be deemed to be unreasonably and unnecessarily delayed thus rendering itself liable to be dismissed on that ground alone viz. that it fell within mischief of proviso to OXXI, R.58(1), C.P.C. [pp. 429, 4301 A, B & C Thal Engineering Industries, Ltd. v. The Bank of Bhawalpur Ltd. and another 1979 SCMIR 32; Nga San Balu v. Mi Thaik and another AIR 1918 Upper Burma 32(1) and Surendra Nath Goswamy and others v. Rajani Kanta Das AIR 1917 Calcutta 9(2) ref. Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- '. ----0. XXI, R. 58---Objection to attachment of property in execution of decree---Judgment-debtor's son taking plea in said objection application that property in question had been gifted to him through oral gift, therefore, same could not have been attached-_-Validity---Paper on which alleged gift was scribed was not in the handwriting of judgment-debtor, nor had it been admittedly signed by him, nor the same was stated to have been prepared at his instance---Such document was, therefore, not admissible and in any case, would not amount to proof of any gift including the gift claimed---Besides, witnesses . produced in support of such gift were tot worthy of credit-- Judgment-debtor's (donor's) failure to mention such gift in any of the applications filed during execution proceedings and his assertion even after the alleged date of gift that he was the owner of such property would make factum of gift doubtful---Oral gift of property which had been attached in execution of decree was not proved in…