Case Details

Citation(s)
1991 SLG 1720 1991 SLD 1720 1991 CLC 563
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No. 397 of 1990, decided on 10th December, 1990
MUHAMMAD AMIR MALIK, J
Mumtaz Ali Mirza for Petitioner

PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Works, Islamabad

VS

Mrs. KHALID NAZIR

Law:

Section:

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ---- S.82 --- Execution of decree against Government --- Essentials. In subsection (1) of section 82, Civil Procedure Code; 1908 there are two requirements of execution of decree against the Government, namely (i) time shall be specified in the decree within which it shall be satisfied, and (ii) if the decree was not satisfied within the time so specified, "the Court shall report the case for the orders of the Provincial Government." Subsection (2) stipulates that execution shall not issue unless the decree remained unsatisfied for the period of three months computed from the date of report (to the Provincial Government). In the present case it was admitted that while passing the decree for possession, the Court had allowed 15 days time to the -debtor to satisfy the decree. Jagarnath Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar A I R 1961 Pat. 271 ref. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ---- Ss. 79 to 82 --- Provisions of Ss.79 to 82, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 being procedural in nature did not create any substantive right or liability --- Object and scope of Ss.80 and 82. The object of section 80, C.P.C. was to give time to the Government or the Public Officer, at the highest level, to consider the matter involved, and in case the suit had already been instituted to determine whether to defend the same or to accept the claim. Section 82 of the Code is the further extension of this very principle. Its object was to allow a final chance to the Government or the Public Officer concerned to satisfy the decree before the execution was ordered against it/him. In the present case 15 days' time had been granted to the Government to satisfy the decree and admittedly it failed to do so. It had a right under the procedural technicality provided in section 82 of the Code to a period of three months further to consider about the satisfaction and it was only then that the execution could have issued (warrants of possession in the present case). Since the time application was moved by the Government (4-10-1990) much water had flowed down the bridge and yet to insist upon the compliance of the technicality would be nothing more than frustrating…
🔒
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