| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1989 SLG 2035 1989 SLD 2035 1989 SCMR 2029 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. K-53 of 1977, decision dated: 23rd January 1989.(On appeal from the judgment dated 23-8-1976 of the Sind & Baluchistan High Court, Karachi/RA 665/70 in L.PA. No. 120 of 1966)
DR. NASIM HASAN SHAH, ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH AND ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, JJ
S. A. Samad Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ali Akbar, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Hamid Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court and Yousuf Rafi, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. K-53 of 1977, decision dated: 23rd January 1989.(On appeal from the judgment dated 23-8-1976 of the Sind & Baluchistan High Court, Karachi/RA 665/70 in L.PA. No. 120 of 1966)
DR. NASIM HASAN SHAH, ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH AND ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, JJ
S. A. Samad Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ali Akbar, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Hamid Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court and Yousuf Rafi, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondent.
ASIAN ASSOCIATED AGENCIES
VS
PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Industries, Government of Pakistan
Law:
Section:
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)----O. XLVII, R.1 & XXI, R.1--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3)-Dismissal of Review application by High Court--Leave to appeal was granted to consider contentions pertaining to substantial questions of law, viz.- (a) That the High Court vas in error in taking the view that the specified order was not a consent order requiring the petitioner to furnish a bank guarantee before withdrawing the decretal amount deposited in Court by the respondent; (b) That High Court was also in error in thinking that such an order made in execution proceedings could be later recalled by the subsequent order. (c) That, in the circumstances of the case, the High Court was also not justified in invoking the provisions of Order X, Rule 1, C.P.C. so on the record the statement of the counsel for the petitioner as to the true import of the orders and to base its conclusions on this statement; (d) That the High Court was in error in taking the view that the deposit of the decretal amount in Court by the -debtor amounted to a discharge in terms of Rule 1 of Order XXI, C.P.C. in spite of the conditional order made by the Court on the specified date and (e) That in any case petition raised a substantial question of law as to the relevant date for the purpose of determining the rate of exchange applicable to the remittance of the decretal amount to the foreign seller keeping in view the statutory requirements regarding the permission of the State Bank under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947." (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)- ---O.XLVII, R.1--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185--Appeal against dismissal of Review Application--Questions urged did not really arise from the order passed on Review application--Findings recorded in the said order were not even being challenged--Leave to appeal was granted on the impression that all the questions, which had been in controversy between the parties required adjudication overlooking the fact that leave to appeal was sought only against the order passed on Review Application--Supreme Court recalled the leave granting order and dismissed appeal. JUDGMENT NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--This…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492