| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2002 SLG 1106 2002 SLD 1106 2002 SCMR 122 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeals Nos.747 to 750 of 1995, decision dated: 8-10-2001.(On appeal from the judgment of the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta, dated 13-6-1995 passed in C.M. Appeals Nos.21, 22, 23 and 24 of 1989)
NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI AND, JAVED IQBAL, JJ
Nemo for Appellants.Muhammad Ashraf Tanoli, Advocate General, Balochistan, Dil Muhammad Tarar, Advocate Supreme Court and Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondent.
Civil Appeals Nos.747 to 750 of 1995, decision dated: 8-10-2001.(On appeal from the judgment of the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta, dated 13-6-1995 passed in C.M. Appeals Nos.21, 22, 23 and 24 of 1989)
NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI AND, JAVED IQBAL, JJ
Nemo for Appellants.Muhammad Ashraf Tanoli, Advocate General, Balochistan, Dil Muhammad Tarar, Advocate Supreme Court and Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondent.
Sardar AHMED YAR KHAN JOGEZAI and 2 others
VS
PROVINCE OF BALOCHISTAN through Secretary, C&W Department
Law:
Section:
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---S.38 read with O.XXI---Decree---Rectification by Executing Court--Validity---Judgment and decree passed by High Court, duly concurred by Supreme Court and after attaining finality cannot be modified, changed and no deletion, insertion or addition can be made by the Executing Court. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 38 read with O.XXI---Decree, execution of---Modification of decree--Jurisdiction of Executing Court---Judgment and decree passed in favour of the respondent had attained finality---Executing Court at the time of execution of the decree, modified the decree' by changing the rate of interest specified in the decree---Validity---Substitution or amendment could not have been made by the Executing Court as the same amounted to an attempt to frustrate the object-of the and decree which had already attained finality---Such order passed by the Executing Court was arbitrary, capricious and coram non judice---Executing Court could not go behind the decree--When decree passed attained finality, it had got to be executed even if it was erroneously passed---Executing Court could not rectify any mistake in decree which would tantamount to going behind the decree---High Court had rightly set aside the order passed by the Executing Court. Messrs Haji Ahmed & Co. v. Muhammad Siddique and others PLD 1965 Kar. 293; Ghanaya Lal and others v. Punjab National Bank Ltd., Lahore AIR 1932 Lah. 534 and Abdul Khaliq v. Haji PLD 1983 Lah. 445 and Topanmal v. Kundomal Gangaram AIR 1960 SC 388 ref. (c) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)----- ----S.5---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.38 read with O.XXI--Condonation of delay---Order passed in abuse of power and authority--Appeal---Modification of decree by Executing Court---Validity---Where order passed by Court was coram non judice, capricious, passed in abuse of power and authority, delay of 45 days in filing of appeal was rightly condoned---Under the garb of limitation blanket authority could not be given to Executing Courts to modify the decree passed by the Appellate Courts which would not only be contemptuous but would also amount to misconduct. (d) Limitation--- ----…
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