1968 SCMR 160 (PLP)
Fir GHULAM FARID-Petitioner Versus Pir MUHAMMAD BAKHSH-Respondent
| Citation | 1968 SCMR 160 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | S. A. Rahman and Hamoodur Rahman, JJ |
| Parties | Fir GHULAM FARID-Petitioner Versus Pir MUHAMMAD BAKHSH-Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968 SCMR 160 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1968 SCMR 160 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: S. A. Rahman and Hamoodur Rahman, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1968 SCMR 160 (PLP) (Fir GHULAM FARID-Petitioner Versus Pir MUHAMMAD BAKHSH-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Rasheed Chughtai, Advocate Supreme Court, instructed by Wall Muhammad, Senior Attorney for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 5th October 1967, C. M. No. 2/C of 1967 in Regular Second Appeal No. 609 of 1967). Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XLI, r. 5-Stay-Execu tion of decree-Lower court upholding decree- Case pending adjudication in High Court in second weal-High Court's order staying execution of decree subject to deposit of decretal amount, held, eminently just.
Judgment & Decree
HAMOODUR RAHMAN, J,-This is a petition for special leave to appeal from an order of a Division Bench of the High Court of West Pakistan at Lahore admitting a second appeal for full hearing but refusing to interfere with an earlier ad interim order passed by another Division Bench directing that execution of the decree may be stayed only in case the petitioner deposits the dectretal amount in Court. In such event the respondent would not be allowed to withdraw the amount without furnishing security to the satisfac tion of the Court. The petitioner is aggrieved by the later portion of the order. The question as to whether Order XVII, rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure had been rightly applied in the case or not by the trial Court is still to be decided by the High Court. So far as the order granting stay subject to deposit of the' decretal amount in Court is concerned the only argument that has been advanced is that this would render the appeal infructuous. But we are unable to agree with this contention. The order is eminently just, for, two Courts have now upheld the decree and it is pending adjudication in the High Court in second appeal. The High Court was, therefore, fully justified in ordering stay only upon the condition of the decretal amount being deposited in Court. We see no ground to interfere. This petition is, accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.