1972 PLP 237 (SCMR)
Syed RIAZ AHMAD SHAH AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus DAYAL.SINGH COLLEGE TRUST SOCIETY AND ANOTHER‑Respondents
| Citation | 1972 PLP 237 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Syed RIAZ AHMAD SHAH AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus DAYAL.SINGH COLLEGE TRUST SOCIETY AND ANOTHER‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1972 PLP 237 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1972 PLP 237 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1972 PLP 237 (SCMR) (Syed RIAZ AHMAD SHAH AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus DAYAL.SINGH COLLEGE TRUST SOCIETY AND ANOTHER‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Sahibzada Nasir Ali, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Wali Muhammad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 12th May 1972.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated the 29th September 1971, in Civil Revision No. 38 of 1964). Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 38‑Execution of decree- Executing Court cannot go behind decree.
Judgment & Decree
SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.‑Respondent filed a suit for arrears of rent and ejectrnent against Sheikh Riazul Had on 30‑6‑1960 No written statement having been filed by the respondent, the suit was decreed ex parte under Order rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 7‑12‑1960. Petitioners claimed to have occupied part of the house in November 1960, as tenants under the respondent. On 2‑1‑1961decree‑holder respondent filed an application for execution of the decree. On 26‑4‑1963 the petitioners resisted the execution of the decree. On 25‑5‑1963 respondent‑decree‑holder complained of such resistance. Before this date, however, petitioners applied under section 151 read with Order XXI, rules 100, 101 and 103, C. P. C. and claimed that they were not bound by the decree. They challenged the competence of the respondent to file the suit on the ground that after the Scheme of Management had been passed by the Central Government in regard to Evacuee Trust Property it was the Evacuee Trust Board that alone could sue. The learned Civil Judge overruled this objection and held that only the Evacuee Trust Board could raise it and not the petitioners. In the revision petition before the High Court petitioners contended that by the General Notification dated 21‑8‑1959, issued by the Provincial Government under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, the property had vested in the Central Government and thus it had ceased to be evacuee property. The Chief Settlement Commissioner prepared a Scheme under section 16(a) of the said Act on 6‑4‑1960 where under the Evacuee Trust Board was constituted. This Board alone was competent to sue on behalf of the respondent‑Society. The High Court negatived this contention on the ground that the petitioners under Order XXI, rule 101, C. P. C. could not raise such objection. According to well‑settled principles of law the executing Court cannot go behind the decree. Therefore, to permit the petitioners to raise the objection will amount to asking the executing Court to go behind the decree which it cannot. It is thus evident that merely on the basis of a technical objection the petitioners succeeded in obstructing the execution of the decree passed as far back as in December 1960. This has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice. The petition is dismissed. The Execution Court will now proceed with the case from day to day, and dispose of it expeditiously and in accordance with law. Leave refused.