1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
ZILA COUNCIL, FAISALABAD Versus MUHAMMAD IJAZ BUTT
| Citation | 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Ilyas, J |
| Parties | ZILA COUNCIL, FAISALABAD Versus MUHAMMAD IJAZ BUTT |
| Primary Law | (e) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), (b) Basic Democracies Order (18 of 1959) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: (e) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), (b) Basic Democracies Order (18 of 1959), (a) West Pakistan Local Councils and Municipal Committees (Service) Rules, 1963, (d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Ilyas, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (ZILA COUNCIL, FAISALABAD Versus MUHAMMAD IJAZ BUTT). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Hamid-ud-Din for Petitioner.
- Sh. Muzaffar Ahmad Zafar for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 26th November, 1991.
Headnotes / Summary
R. 8(c)
Dismissal of employee--Non-impleading of a party which was neither appointing nor dismissing authority
Effect
Overseer of District Council was dismissed from service
Overseer's declaratory suit against his dismissal was decreed and same was upheld en appeal
Petitioner defendant's objection petition against execution of decree was dismissed, so also its appeal
Petitioner's plea in revision was that Commissioner, during pendency of suit having been vested with powers to appoint and dismiss the overseers, by non-impleading the Commissioner, judgment and decree against petitioner-defendant was of no legal effect and that property of petitioner could not be attached in execution of decree
Plaintiff having not been dismissed by the Commissioner was not obliged to implead him as a party to the suit
Commissioner had become the appointing and dismissing Authority of the Overseers after the suit was filed and before it was decreed against the defendant
Defendant neither made any application before Trial Court for impleading the Commissioner nor he himself had filed appeal or impleaded him as a party in appeal
Defendant, thus, could not be allowed to make capital out of his own omission with a view to avoiding the judgment and decree which had attained finality. National Bank of Pakistan v. Syed Muzammal Hussain PLD 1965 (W.P.) Kar. 633; Mst. Maqbool Begum etc. v. Ghullan and others PLD 1982 SC 46; Banu Mal v. Paras Ram and another AIR 1930 Lah. 110 and Mst. Dhannabai Johri v. Kashrichand Johri and another AIR 1929 Nag. 34 ref.
Arts. 2 (24), 9 & 38(2)
Executive powers of a Local Council vested in its Chairman could be exercised by him either directly or through other persons authorised by him
Dismissal of plaintiff was to be treated as an act of the defendant Authority which could be sued through its Chairman as was done by the plaintiff
Impleading of Commissioner as a party to proceedings before lower Courts was thus, not necessary.
O XXI, R. 32
Acution of decree against a corporation
Mode of examination
Decree for an injunction against a corporation could be enforced by the attachment of property of the corporation or, with the leave of the Court, by the detention in the civil prison of the director or other principal officer thereof, or by both attachment and detention
Declaratory decree simpliciter, however, could not be executed
Decree for declaration with permanent injunction, by way of consequential relief, was executable.
O. XXI, R. 32
Word "injunction" as employed in O. XXI, R. 32(2) C.P.C. includes a prohibitory injunction also.
S. 35
Where plaintiff was unnecessarily obliged to suffer litigation for about quarter of a century, case was fit one for burdening defendant with costs.
Judgment & Decree
(b) Basic Democracies Order (18 of 1959)
Arts. 2 (24), 9 & 38(2)
Executive powers of a Local Council vested in its Chairman could be exercised by him either directly or through other persons authorised by him
Dismissal of plaintiff was to be treated as an act of the defendant Authority which could be sued through its Chairman as was done by the plaintiff
Impleading of Commissioner as a party to proceedings before lower Courts was thus, not necessary. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
O XXI, R. 32
Acution of decree against a corporation
Mode of examination
Decree for an injunction against a corporation could be enforced by the attachment of property of the corporation or, with the leave of the Court, by the detention in the civil prison of the director or other principal officer thereof, or by both attachment and detention
Declaratory decree simpliciter, however, could not be executed
Decree for declaration with permanent injunction, by way of consequential relief, was executable. (d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
O. XXI, R. 32
Word "injunction" as employed in O. XXI, R. 32(2) C.P.C. includes a prohibitory injunction also. (e) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
S. 35
Where plaintiff was unnecessarily obliged to suffer litigation for about quarter of a century, case was fit one for burdening defendant with costs. Ch. Hamid-ud-Din for Petitioner. Sh. Muzaffar Ahmad Zafar for Respondent. Date of hearing: 26th November, 1991.