| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1996 SLD 767 = 1996 CLC 1399 |
Lahore High Court
Regular Second Appeal No.416 of 1969, decided on 26th March, 1996.
Presented By: Before Ihsan-ul-Haq Chaudhry, J
Malik Sharif Ahmad for Petitioners. Mirza Aziz Akbar Baig for
Respondents.
Regular Second Appeal No.416 of 1969, decided on 26th March, 1996.
Presented By: Before Ihsan-ul-Haq Chaudhry, J
Malik Sharif Ahmad for Petitioners. Mirza Aziz Akbar Baig for
Respondents.
ALLAH DIWAYA and others---Petitioners
VERSUS
ALLAH DIWAYA and others---Respondents
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 47 , 2
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 47 & O.XXI, R. 2---Entitlement of parties to adjust/discharge decree of Court without intervention of Court---All questions between parties relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of decree would be determined by Executing Court in term of S. 47, C.P.C., while adjustment and satisfaction of decree would be possible under O.XXI, R. 2, C.P.C.---Parties were, thus, at liberty to adjust their rights and liabilities accrued under decree or decree-holder can discharge judgment-debtor of his obligation under the decree---Where alienor had discharged respondents of their obligations under the decree, through agreement, result was that parties were relegated to the position before the judgment and decree being executed by petitioner ---Alienor and respondent through agreement in question, decided to accept the exchange effected through mutation as valid and binding after the decree wherein they had contested earlier agreement and attestation of mutation on basis thereof, which was set aside by Court---Subsequent agreement was, thus, an instrument of discharge of liability under the decree---No specific form of instrument of discharge having been specified in C.P.C., effect of each of such agreements has to be determined in each case on its merits---Term "adjustment" and "discharge", however, cater for two different eventualities in that "adjustment" did not include agreement to "discharge" the decree---Term "discharge", thus, is wider in effect than adjustment---Petitioner being stranger did not possess locus standi to object to concession given by alienor to respondent---Agreement between patties having become effective subsequent to decree and by such agreement alienor having discharged liability under the decree, petitioner, a stranger had no cause of action to seek relief against a binding contract between the parties---Petitioner's suit being incompetent was rightly dismissed in circumstances. Oudh Commercial Bank Ltd. Fyzabad v. Thakurain Bind Basni Kuer and others; Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edn.…