1970 PLP 183 (SCMR)
Mian MUSHTAQ AHMAD-Petitioner Versus Ch. BASHIR AHMAD-Respondent,
| Citation | 1970 PLP 183 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Mian MUSHTAQ AHMAD-Petitioner Versus Ch. BASHIR AHMAD-Respondent, |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1970 PLP 183 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1970 PLP 183 (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: 1970 PLP 183 (SCMR) (Mian MUSHTAQ AHMAD-Petitioner Versus Ch. BASHIR AHMAD-Respondent,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Khalil-ur-Rahman Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rana Maqbul Ahmad Qadri Attorney for Petitioner,
- Nemo for Respondent:
- Date of hearing: l0th-October1960
- Khalil‑ur‑Rahman Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rana Maqbul Ahmad Qadri Attorney for Petitioner,
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore dated the 15th April 1969 in F.A.O. No. 70 of 1969). Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) O. XLI , r . 5-Money decree Stay of execution pending appeal Discretion of Court Supreme Court refuse to interfere with order of appellate Court .
Judgment & Decree
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) O. XLI , r . 5-Money decree Stay of execution pending appeal Discretion of Court Supreme Court refuse to interfere with order of appellate Court . Khalil‑ur‑Rahman Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rana Maqbul Ahmad Qadri Attorney for Petitioner, Nemo for Respondent: Date of hearing: l0th‑October1960 SAJJAD AHMAD, J.‑The petitioner has filed a First Appeal in the High Court (F. A. O. No. 70/69) against a money decree in the sum of Rs. 50,000 passed against him ex parte on the basis of a pro‑note. By an interlocutory order, the High Court has admitted the appeal, but has refused to stay the execution of the decree. It has, however, been directed that the decree‑holder Will not withdraw the amount without furnishing adequate security to the satisfaction of the executing Court. In this petition for Special Leave to Appeal against the order of the High Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is not possible for the petitioner to raise this amount and that even if he were to do so by pooling all his re sources, the blockade of his money would wreck his business. The order refusing stay of execution has been made by the High Court in due exercise of its discretion in the matter wish which we are not inclined to interfere. The learned counsel has stated that the petitioner can furnish security to pay the decrial amount if his appeal is dismissed by the High Court. The petitioner may move the High Court for modification of its order, if so advised. The petition is dismissed. Leave refused.