| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1992 SLG 860 1992 SLD 860 1992 CLC 1323 |
Sindh High Court
High Court Appeals Nos. 34 and 41 of 1990, of decided on 15th April, 1991
MAMOON KAZI AND SALAHUDDIN MIRZA, JJ
Mohammad Sharif. for Appellant (in High Court Appeal No. 34 of 1990 and for
Respondent No. 2 in High Court Appeal No. 41 of 1990). Ahsan Zaheer Rizvi for Appellant (in High Court Appeal No. 41 and and for
Respondent No. 2 in High Court Appeal No. 34 of 19
High Court Appeals Nos. 34 and 41 of 1990, of decided on 15th April, 1991
MAMOON KAZI AND SALAHUDDIN MIRZA, JJ
Mohammad Sharif. for Appellant (in High Court Appeal No. 34 of 1990 and for
Respondent No. 2 in High Court Appeal No. 41 of 1990). Ahsan Zaheer Rizvi for Appellant (in High Court Appeal No. 41 and and for
Respondent No. 2 in High Court Appeal No. 34 of 19
Syed ASHAD ALI SADIO
VS
PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION and another
Law:
Section:
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 64, OXXI, R. 54 & OXXXVIII, R.5---Alienation of property after attachment---Validity---Property in question had been attached before by order of the Court under provisions of OXXXVIII, R.5, Civil Procedure Code, 1908---Objection application against grant of such order of attachment was dismissed and property in question, continued to remain under attachment---Subsequently though order in regard to the attachment of property was vacated, yet the application to which the order related was the execution application giving wrong number of property---When such fact came to the notice of the Single Judge he ordered vacation of attachment which operated in respect of wrong property---Other order which was passed under provision of OXXXVIII, R.5, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, in respect of actual property in question, remained intact---Such aspect of the matter having already been considered by the Court and adequate reasons having been given by it for arriving at its findings there was no flaw in such finding---Attachment of property was validly effected and all formalities with regard thereto were complied with---Attachment order having been passed in execution proceedings, sale transaction in favour of appellant in respect of said attached property was invalid. AIR 1928 Pat. 199; AIR 1936 Nag. 163; AIR 1941 Bom. 198 and AIR 1943 Bom. 145 ref. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V or 1908)--- ----OXXI, R.54---Attachment of immovable property -l-Bailiff had pasted notice in regard to attachment of case property at the premises and also on Court's notice board---Validity---Office copy of such notice did not indicate that proclamation was also made by beating of drum, but merely because there was no beating of drum, same would not render the attachment invalid when other requirements viz. service of order of -debtor and pasting of notice on conspicuous .part of the property as well as on Court's notice board had been adequately complied with---Where provisions of OXXI, R.54 (2) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, had been substantially complied with, so that object behind the same rule was adequately served, attachment could not be deemed…
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