Case Details

Citation(s)
1998 SLG 1260 1998 SLD 1260 1998 PLD 503
Lahore High Court
First Appeal from Order No. 90 of 1997, decided on 6th April, 1998
IHSAN-UL-HAQ CHAUDHRY, J
Taki Ahmad Khan for Appellant. M.A. Hayee Khan for
Respondents

Begum RASHIDA NAWAZ

VS

Ch. MUHAMMAD AMIN and 3 OTHERS--Respondents

Law:

Section:

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-- ----S. 106 & O.XLIII, R.1(i)---Value of the suit was Rs.21,00,000---Order of the Executing Court being appealable in view of provision of O.XLIII, RA(i); appeal against the order of Executing Court was to be filed in the High Court and not in the District Court in view of 5.106, C.P.C. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-- ----S. 115---Revision---Suo motu revisional jurisdiction, exercise of---Litigation was going on for the last 10 years and litigation was of the type which could give bad name to the judicial system---High Court, in circumstances, set aside the order of the Additional District Judge in exercise of suo motu revisional jurisdiction and treated the appeal before it as an appeal against the order of Executing Court wherein application under O.XXI, R.34, C.P.C. was rejected. Manzoor-ul-Haq and 3 others v. Mst. Kaneez Begum 1993 CLC 109 ref, (c) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)-- ----S. 14---Both the parties had been labouring under a wrong impression that appeal before the District Judge was competent---Appellant, in circumstances, would be entitled to benefit of S.14, Limitation Act, 1908. Sherin and 4 others v. Fazal Muhammad and 4 others 1995 SCMR 584 rel. (d) Administration of justice-- ----Technicalities---Impact---All laws and procedures are aimed at just decisions of the disputes of litigants---Technicalities unless unsurmountable should not be a stumbling block in the administration of justice. Civil Revision No.474 of 1995, decided on 6th July, 1995 ref. (e) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-- ----S. 2(2) & O.XXIII, R.3---Decree---Compromise decree---Execution---Locus standi to file application for execution of decree---Neither appellant nor one of the respondents came forward in terms of the compromise to get the sale-deed executed and registered, therefore, they had no locus standi to file application for execution. (f) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)-- ----Art. 181---Execution of decree---Limitation---Decree was passed on 24-11-1990 while the execution petition was filed on 19-1-1994---Limitation under Art.181, Limitation Act, 1908 being three years, even if there was a subsisting decree the same…
πŸ”’
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