2002 PLP 906 (CLC)
Dr. Malik MUHAMMAD ARSHAD KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Ch‑ MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2002 PLP 906 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Shabbir Ahmed, J |
| Parties | Dr. Malik MUHAMMAD ARSHAD KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Ch‑ MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and another‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Sindh Chief Court Rules (O.S.)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 906 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Sindh Chief Court Rules (O.S.)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 906 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Shabbir Ahmed, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 906 (CLC) (Dr. Malik MUHAMMAD ARSHAD KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Ch‑ MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hassan Inamullah for Petitioner.
- Saalim Salam Ansari for Respondent No. l.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑R. 128(v), Chap. 1, Appendix C‑‑‑Nazir's entitlement to fee‑‑‑Nazir could not claim. fee in respect of attachment of property only‑‑‑If Nazir was appointed as a Commissioner for sale of property in suit or execution, he was entitled for fee, but no fee was permissible on attachment.
Judgment & Decree
Judicial Miscellaneous No. 18 of 2001, decided on 28th January, 2002. ‑‑‑‑R. 128(v), Chap. 1, Appendix C‑‑‑Nazir's entitlement to fee‑‑‑Nazir could not claim. fee in respect of attachment of property only‑‑‑If Nazir was appointed as a Commissioner for sale of property in suit or execution, he was entitled for fee, but no fee was permissible on attachment. Hassan Inamullah for Petitioner. Saalim Salam Ansari for Respondent No. l. Nazir's reference is taken on record to the extent of compliance order, dated 29‑11‑2001. Nazir has also claimed 1 % as his fee as per. rule 128(v), Chapter 1, Appendix C. The Nazir cannot claim fee in respect of attachment only. If he was appointed as a Commissioner for sale of the property in the suit or execution, he is entitled for fee but on attachment no fee is permissible. Consequently, Nazir's fee in terms of rule 128(v), Chapter 1, Appendix C, is declined. This order will not be bar in the way of Nazir, if he was Commissioner for sale in Execution No. 12 of 1994. H.B.T./M‑303/K Order accordingly.