Case Details

Citation(s)
1993 SLG 473 1993 SLD 473 1993 CLC 255
Lahore High Court
W.P. No. 10779 of 1992, decision dated: 11-11-1992.
CH. MUSHTAQ AHMAD KHAN, J

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

ZAFAR ULLAH and others

VS

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, NANKANA SAHIB and others

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 51,115

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 199

Law: Limitation Act, 1908

Section: 5

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S.115---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 5---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Constitutional jurisdiction---Discretion exercised by Revisional Court in refusing to condone delay in filing revision---Validity---Revision was admittedly barred by time---No sufficient explanation for filing of delayed revision ---Revisional Court in exercise of its discretion had refused to condone delay---High Court in Constitutional jurisdiction, could not interfere with the exercise of discretion by Revisional Court with regard to condonation of delay---Order of refusal to condone delay passed by Revisional Court was, thus, not liable to be interfered with. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 51---Attachment and sale of surety's property in execution for payment of money---Validity---Decree could be executed against -debtor as also his surety; it was not necessary that final execution proceedings should be exhausted against -debtor and then surety should be proceeded against ---No illegality with the order passed by Executing Court whereby land belonging to surety had been attached and had been directed to be sold--­Surety's plea that land in question, should not be sold because ­ debtor wanted to pay the decretal amount appeared to be mala fide for no decretal amount had yet been deposited by -debtor. [p. 2571 B (e) Limitation--­ ---- Any illegal order should also be challenged within limitation. (d) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)--- ----Art. 199---Orders passed by' Courts below were fair and just---Petitioner challenging such orders in Constitutional jurisdiction had not come to Court with clean hands i.e. by not depositing decretal amount before seeking remedy against impugned orders---Order passed in execution of decree having been passed by Court of competent jurisdiction, could not 'be interfered with in exercise of discretionary Constitutioned jurisdiction. ORDER Briefly stated, facts of the case out of which this petition has arisen are that in execution of a decree for payment of maintenance at the rate of Rs.200 p.m. passed in favour of Abdul Rauf minor son of Zafarullah petitioner No.l, landed property…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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