| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1999 SLG 1143 1999 SLD 1143 1999 PLD 216 |
Lahore High Court
First Appeal from Order No. 29 of 1998, heard on 25th November, 1998, DATE of hearing: 25th November, 1998.
NAJAM-UL-HASSAN KAZMI, J
Sardar Sami Hayat for Appellant. Muhammad Rashid Chughtai for
Respondent.
First Appeal from Order No. 29 of 1998, heard on 25th November, 1998, DATE of hearing: 25th November, 1998.
NAJAM-UL-HASSAN KAZMI, J
Sardar Sami Hayat for Appellant. Muhammad Rashid Chughtai for
Respondent.
REHMANIA TEXTILE MILLS (PVT.) LIMITED through Mian Abdul Rehman, Chief Executive
VS
MUHAMMAD INAYATULLAH KHAN NIAZI
Law:
Section:
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----0. XXXVIII, Rr. 11 & 6---If the property is under attachment during the pendency of suit then ordinarily, under O.XXXVIII, R.11, C.P.C. it shall not be necessary upon application for execution of decree to apply for re-attachment of the property. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O.XXXVIII, R.11---Order of attachment of property---Applicant went in appeal against order of attachment and impugned order of attachment was suspended with direction by Appellate Court that no further proceedings for attachment shall be conducted before the Trial Court---Effect---Order of attachment having ceased to exist, it could not be said that the order of attachment in the suit was intact and that no fresh order was required. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----0. XXXVIII, R.11---Order of attachment of property---Both the counsel had also made the statements that the order of attachment was no longer in field--Respondent had not pleaded the continuation of the attachment order at the time when appeal was decided---Effect---Property was never attached and before the order of attachment could be given effect, its operation was stayed in appeal and main suit was decreed with consent---Order of attachment, therefore, remained no longer in. field---Held, in circumstances, it would be too late in the day for the respondent to turn around and plead that he should be allowed to apply for auction with fresh attachment of the property. JUDGMENT Respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.31,42,938, under Order XXXVII of C.P.C. Out of this amount, Rs.13,81,469 was claimed against promissory note, Rs.13,21,469 for loss of business, Rs.4 lacs for mental torture and Rs.l lac for loss per mensem. An application under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 of C.P.C. was filed in the suit for attachment before judgment. On 14-11-1994, the application for attachment before judgment was allowed. This order was challenged by appellant (Rehmania Textile Mills (Pvt.) Ltd., in F. A. O. No. 123 of 1995. Vide order, dated 4-6-1995, the operation of the order of attachment was stayed. On 23-10-1995, it was directed that no further proceedings for…
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