2007 PLP 1840 (MLD)
Messrs UNION NATIONAL BANK through Attorney — Applicant Versus IQBAL AHMED MALIK — Respondent
| Citation | 2007 PLP 1840 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Messrs UNION NATIONAL BANK through Attorney — Applicant Versus IQBAL AHMED MALIK — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 1840 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP 1840 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 1840 (MLD) (Messrs UNION NATIONAL BANK through Attorney — Applicant Versus IQBAL AHMED MALIK — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ----S.51 & O.XXI, Rr.37, 38, 39, 40---Execution of decree---Application for arrest and detention of judgment-debtor---Application had been filed by decree-holder for arrest and detention of judgment-debtor for the reason that judgment-debtor was not satisfying the decree despite the fact that High Court appeal against decree had been dismissed---Simple detention of judgment-debtor would not serve the purpose towards realization of the decretal amount as no allegation existed which would come within the ambit of S.51, C.P.C., while judgment-debtor was representing himself through an Advocate and appeal was pending before the Supreme Court---No purpose would be served by application made by applicant/decree-holder in such a situation, nor it was maintainable in the circumstances of the case---Application filed by decree-holder was dismissed---Counsel for decree-holder could search for the property of judgment-debtor through other sources towards satisfaction of the decree.
- Afaq Ahmed for Respondent.
- Heard the learned counsel. It seems that simple detention of judgment-debtor will not serve the purpose towards realization of the decretal amount as apparently, there is no allegation which comes within the ambit of section 51, C.P.C. while judgment-debtor is representing, himself through an Advocate and has been pursuing the case and now the appeal is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In such a situation, no purpose will be served by the application made by the applicant nor it is maintainable in the circumstances of the case. Keeping in view the authorities cited by the learned counsel and legal position the application is dismissed.
Headnotes / Summary
S.51 & O.XXI, Rr.37, 38, 39, 40
Application for arrest and detention of judgment-debtor
Application had been filed by decree-holder for arrest and detention of judgment-debtor for the reason that judgment-debtor was not satisfying the decree despite the fact that High Court appeal against decree had been dismissed
Simple detention of judgment-debtor would not serve the purpose towards realization of the decretal amount as no allegation existed which would come within the ambit of S.51, C.P.C., while judgment-debtor was representing himself through an Advocate and appeal was pending before the Supreme Court
No purpose would be served by application made by applicant/decree-holder in such a situation, nor it was maintainable in the circumstances of the case
Application filed by decree-holder was dismissed
Counsel for decree-holder could search for the property of judgment-debtor through other sources towards satisfaction of the decree.
Judgment & Decree
MUNIB AHMED KHAN, J.
C.M.A. No.414 of 2006 has been filed for arrest and detention of judgment-debtor in jail as according to learned counsel for decree-holder the judgment debtor is not satisfying the decree notwithstanding the fact that High Court Appeal against the decree has been dismissed. On the other hand Mr. Salim Saiam Ansar; submits that an ex parte decree was passed against judgment-debtor and after dismissal of appeal the matter is taken to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, where it is sub judice. He raised legal objection to the prayer of the applicants that judgment-debtor caimot be detained in prison till the requirement of section 51 as well as rules 37 to 40 of Order XXI are fulfilled. In this respect he has relied upon PLD 2000 Karachi (sic) and PLD 2000 Lahore
290. Learned counsel for the applicant/decree holder has admitted that there is no security against the loan which was granted to judgment-debtor nor he is aware as to whether any property stands in the name of judgment-debtor or he has sold out any such property after filing of suit. He submits that detention is only to pressurize the judgment-debtor for payment of money outstanding against him. Heard the learned counsel. It seems that simple detention of judgment-debtor will not serve the purpose towards realization of the decretal amount as apparently, there is no allegation which comes within the ambit of section 51, C.P.C. while judgment-debtor is representing, himself through an Advocate and has been pursuing the case and now the appeal is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In such a situation, no purpose will be served by the application made by the applicant nor it is maintainable in the circumstances of the case. Keeping in view the authorities cited by the learned counsel and legal position the application is dismissed. Learned counsel for the decree-holder may search for the property of judgment-debtor through other sources towards satisfaction of the decree and approach this Court. H.B.T./U-10/K Appeal Dismissed.