Law:

Section:

(a) Executing Court Executing Court, interference in decree Validity When decree remains intact then the Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree. Messrs Conforce Limited v. Messrs Rafique Industries Ltd. and others PLD 1989 SC 136 ref. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Art.189 Judgment passed by Supreme Court Effect ¬Such has prospective effect and not retrospective effect and past and closed transactions cannot be re¬opened. Muhammad Yousuf v. The Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Pakistan, Lahore PLD 1968 SC 101 ref. (c) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Art.l99 Constitutional petition Past and closed transaction Jurisdiction of Executing Court Suit for recovery of Bank loan was decreed in favour of the Bank and the borrower did not assail the decree During the execution proceedings the borrower assailed the decree passed by the Banking Court on the basis of titled M/s. Chenab Cement Product (Put.) Ltd. and others v. Banking Tribunal, Lahore and others reported as PLD 1996 Lah. 672 Judgment so relied upon by the borrower was considered by Supreme Court in case titled M/s. Tri Star Polyester Limited v. Citibank reported as 2001 SCMR 410 and the Supreme Court saved the decrees passed by the Banking Courts before the relied upon by the borrower and the aggrieved persons did not file appeals in time under the provisions of banking laws Effect High Court declined to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly. Messrs Chenab Cement Product (Pvt.) Ltd. and others v. Banking Tribunal, Lahore and others PLD 1996 Lah. 672; Messrs Tri Star Polyester Limited v. Citibank 2001 SCMR 410; Nawab Syed Raunaq Ali's case PLD 1973 SC 236 and Rana Muhammad Arshad's case 1998 SCMR 1468 ref. ORDER The brief facts out of which the present writ petition arises are that the petitioner No.1 stood surety for the supply of Sui gas to petitioners Nos.2 and 3 for Rs.1,31,000. 'The respondent No.2 filed a suit for recovery of Rs.2,04,889.50 against the petitioner before respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 passed the decree against the petitioner amounting to Rs.1,02,709,50 vide judgment and decree dated 19 12 1995. The…

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