Case Details

Citation(s)
2003 SLG 2654 2003 SLD 2654 2003 CLC 1252
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No. 353 of 1996, heard on 3rd March, 2003.
MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, 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

MUHAMMAD ISMAIL

VS

Raja MUHAMMAD YOUNIS

Law:

Section:

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------O. XXI, R. 32, Ss. 47 & 104---Decree in a suit for injunction--­Disobedience---Appeal---Maintainability of---Application alleging disobedience of decree was allowed by Executing Court---Appeal against such order was dismissed by Additional District Judge holding that it was not maintainable---Validity---Order of the Executing Court was passed in relation to execution of decree---Order was squarely covered by S.47, C.P.C. being a lis between the parties to the suit---Such being so the order of the Executing Court was appealable under S.104(1)(ff), C.P.C. Muhammada and 3 others v. Allah Bakhsh and others 1998 CLC 757 ref. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----Ss. 47, 104(1)(ff) & O.XXI, R.32---Appeal against order passed under O.XXI, R.32, C.P.C.---Maintainability---First Appellate Court came to the conclusion that no appeal was maintainable against an order passed under O.XXI, R.32, C.P.C.---Validity---Appeal was maintainable and First Appellate Court by refusing to exercise jurisdiction vesting in it had acted illegally---Order of the Executing Court was squarely covered by S.47, C.P.C. and is appealable under S.104(1)(ff), C.P.C. Malik Mahmood Sultan Kalyami for Petitioner. Muhammad Ilyas Sheikh for Respondent Date of hearing: 3rd March, 2003. JUDGMENT Alleging disobedience of a decree for an injunction passed on 4-2-1966, the respondent filed an application under Order XXI, rule 32, C.P.C. The application was resisted by the petitioner stating that he has not disobeyed the decree. Issues were framed. The evidence of the parties was recorded. The !earned trial Court found that decree has been disobeyed and proceeded to pass orders accordingly on 25-1-1994. Against this order an appeal was filed. This appeal was taken up by a learned ADJ, Rawalpindi, who proceeded to dismiss the appeal holding that an appeal against an order made under Order XXI, rule 32. C.P.C. is not competent. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned…
🔒
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