| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1998 SLD 724 = 1998 CLC 385 |
Peshawar High Court
Civil Revision No:52 of 1996, decided on 27th October, 1997.
Presented By: Before Tariq Parvez, J
Mushtaq Ali Tahir Kheli for Petitioner. Muhammad Saleem Khan for
Respondent.
Civil Revision No:52 of 1996, decided on 27th October, 1997.
Presented By: Before Tariq Parvez, J
Mushtaq Ali Tahir Kheli for Petitioner. Muhammad Saleem Khan for
Respondent.
MUHAMMAD YAMIN KHAN---Petitioner
VERSUS
Mst. NASIM AKHTAR---Respondent
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 99 , 117 , 118
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O.XXI, R.99---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 117 & 118---Objection to execution of decree---Locus standi to object---Provision of O.XXI, R.99, C.P.C. provides protection to person in possession, not to be dispossessed in process of execution proceedings, provided he fulfils requirements given therein---To establish locus standi to file objection application, burden would be on objector to prove, so as to resist execution of decree which had attained finality. ---[Locus standi]. Mst. Maryam and others v. Haji Ali and others PLD 1985 Kar.705; Mst. Khurshid Begum and others v. Ghulam Kubra and others 1982 SCMR 90; Fazal Elahi Siddiqui v. Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division and others PLD 1990 SC 692; Lai Din and others v. Muhammad Ibrahim 1993 SCMR 710; Abdul Qadir v. The Presiding Officer Punjab Labour Court No.3, Lyallpur PLD 1975 Lah. 44; Shaukat Nawaz v. Mansab Dad 1988 SCMR 851; Saheb Khan v. Muhammad Pannah PLD 1994 SC 162; Haji Abdul JAM v. Anjuman Jamia Masjid Haquani 1996 MLD 818; Shehzad Ahmed v. Muhammad Hayat PLD 1983 Lah. 234; Mst. Amina Begum v. Chairman, Karachi Development Authority and others 1993 CLC 1307 and Manzoor Mai v. Abdul Aziz 1992 CLC 235 ref. Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-- ---O.XXI, R.99---Objection to execution of decree that had attained finality-- Person filing objection petition had remained associated with preparation of site plan of house in question; when Local Commissioner had visited spot and objector had made statement to the effect that he was closely related to the parties; was living in that village and had also admitted knowledge of litigation going on between the parties and still he made no move to join such proceedings until warrants of possession was issued by Executing Court---Conduct of person, resisting execution of decree was very relevant---Provision of O.XXI, R.99, C.P.C. had laid great stress an good faith and bona fides of objector, which was lacking in him while filing objection petition---Objector's conduct alone, coupled with material on record disentitled him to protection of O.XXI, R.99, C.P.C. Civil Procedure…