| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2004 SLG 1986 2004 SLD 1986 2004 CLC 1711 |
Lahore High Court
C.R. No. 1856 of 2004, decision dated: 28-07-2004
SYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J,
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
C.R. No. 1856 of 2004, decision dated: 28-07-2004
SYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J,
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
MUMTAZ AHMAD KHAN and others
VS
Malik TAJ MUHAMMAD and others
Law:
Section:
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------O. XXXVII, R.5, O.XXXVIII, R.5 & O.I, R.10---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.12---Suit for recovery or money on the basis of pronote--Attachment of properties---Application under O.I, R.10, C.P.C. to be impleaded as party on the ground that one of the properties so attached had been transferred to the applicants through an agreement and their suit for specific performance qua the same property was pending in the Civil Court---Applicants further pleaded that any attachment order passed thereabout would affect adversely their interest---District Judge accepted the application for attachment before of the property and dismissed the application for being impleaded as party to the suit--Plaintiffs in the suit for recovery also applied to be impleaded as party in the suit for specific performance---Applicants, who had applied for being impleaded as party to the recovery suit, stated that they did not intend to alienate or deal with the disputed property during the pendency of the suit for recovery or their suit for specific performance and would maintain status quo whereas the plaintiffs in the suit for recovery stated that in case any decree was passed in their favour in the suit for recovery, the same would not be executed until the decision of the suit for specific performance---Validity---Such stance of the parties, which prima facie, appeared to be just and fair, should have clinched at least the interlocutory controversy by resultant vacation of the attachment order passed by the District Judge---When the applicants had claimed some interest to have been acquired by them particularly when there was suit for specific performance also pending in the Court, if not necessary they should be considered as proper party in the suit for recovery so that they might have the opportunity of representation and defending before the Court that the agreement in their favour and the suit filed by them was not a conclusive affair---Similar approach could also be adopted qua the plaintiff in suit for recovery whose application for being impleaded as party to the suit for specific performance, to enable him to plead his case that 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