2006 PLP 1157 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD MUZAFFAR — Petitioner Versus MAQSOOD-UL-HASSAN — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 PLP 1157 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Actg. C.J., Faqir Muhammad Khokhar and Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD MUZAFFAR — Petitioner Versus MAQSOOD-UL-HASSAN — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 1157 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 1157 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Actg. C.J., Faqir Muhammad Khokhar and Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 1157 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD MUZAFFAR — Petitioner Versus MAQSOOD-UL-HASSAN — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ----S. 12---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss.2(2) & 47---Specific performance of agreement---Execution of judgment---Non-preparation of decree-sheet---Effect---Compromise was effected between the parties and on the first date of hearing, suit was dismissed by Trial Court for want of cause of action---Plaintiff filed execution application which was allowed by Executing Court but Appellate Court dismissed the execution application on the ground that since no decree-sheet was prepared, the same could not be executed---Order passed by Appellate Court was maintained by High Court---Plea raised by plaintiff was that as compromise had been effected between the parties, therefore, the judgment was executable---Validity---When the suit was dismissed for want of cause of action and Trial Court prepared no decree-sheet, there was no question of filing execution application nor such order could be executed---High Court had rightly dismissed revision and no interference of Supreme Court was called for in exercise of jurisdiction under Art.185(3) of the Constitution---Leave to appeal was refused.
- Ch. Inayatullah, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 26th January, 2005.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order, dated 30-9-2004 passed by Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench Bahawalpur in Civil Revision No.364 of 2002/BWP).
Judgment & Decree
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, ACTG. C.J.
This petition for leave to appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 30-9-2004 passed by Lahore High Court.
2. Precisely stating the facts of the case are that petitioner instituted a suit for specific performance allegedly against the respondent and produced him on the day of presentation of the plaint before the Court who admitted his claim, as such the learned trial Court for want of cause of action dismissed the suit on 1st April, 1996. Later on after about 5 years an execution application was submitted on or about 23rd May, 2001. Learned Executing Court vide order dated 6th June, 2001 directed the Reader of the Court to register a conveyance in favour of the petitioner. A draft sale-deed was prepared the same day and was also registered on that very day. Subsequently, when matter came up for hearing in appeal on the file of Additional District Judge, Bahawalnagar he accepted the appeal on 4th June, 2002, as a consequence whereof execution application was dismissed. It is important to note that learned Appellate Court on having taken into consideration all the attending circumstances of the case opined that as the suit tiled by the petitioner was dismissed and no decree was passed, therefore, the execution application was incompetent. Against the order of Additional District Judge a revision was filed before the High Court which has been dismissed.
3. Learned counsel stated that as a compromise has been effected between the parties, therefore, the judgment was executable. We enquired from the learned counsel as to whether any decree-sheet was prepared his. answer was in negative. It is important to note that when the suit was dismissed for want of cause of action and the trial Court prepared no decree-sheet, thus, there was no question of filing execution application nor such an order can be executed. For the foregoing reasons we are of the opinion that the learned High Court has rightly dismissed the revision and no interference is called for by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. As such the petition is dismissed and leave refused. M.H./M-256/S Leave refused.