| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1966 SLG 5220 = 1966 SLD 5220 = 1966 PLD 371 |
WEST PAKISTAN, KARACHI
Civil Revision No. 434 of 1963, decided on 27th April 1964.
Presented By: H. T. Raymond, J
Nasir Shahmir holding brief of Qutubuddin Ahmed for Applicants. Naimuddin for
Respondent No. 1. M. I. Abbasi for
Respondents Nos. 2 and 3.
Civil Revision No. 434 of 1963, decided on 27th April 1964.
Presented By: H. T. Raymond, J
Nasir Shahmir holding brief of Qutubuddin Ahmed for Applicants. Naimuddin for
Respondent No. 1. M. I. Abbasi for
Respondents Nos. 2 and 3.
IBRAHIM AND OTHERS-Applicants
VERSUS
MUHAMMAD ISMAIL A. H. MEMON COLLECTOR -------OF LASBELA AND OTHERS-Respondents
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 5
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)----O. XLI, r. 5-Stay of execution-No application for execution of decree pending in any Court-Stay of proceedings cannot be ordered. Harnaman and others v. Dasondhi and others A I R 1920 Lah. 373 and Jinardan v. Nilkant I L R 25 Bom. 583 ref. ORDER Mr. Naimuddin points out that the interim stay order is not maintainable in law as there is no application for execution of any decree now pending in this matter. He relies for 'this submission upon two cases reported in A I R 1920 Lah. 373 and in I L R 25 Bom. 583. In the first case it was held that: "No order for stay of execution can be made under Order XLI, rule 5, C. P. C. if there is no application for execution of the decree under appeal pending before any Court." In the earlier case of Jinardan v. Nilkant (I L R 25 Bom. 583) a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court had taken a similar view. In view of this legal position Mr. Naimuddin submits that the interim stay order granted in this case is not maintainable in law. On facts, also, Mr. Naimuddin points out that this interim stay order is infructuous as possession of the…