1996CLC818 (PLP)
UNITED BANK LIMITED‑‑‑Plaintiff Versus Messrs HOOSAIN BHOY ABDOOLALLY BANDUKWALA LIMITED,
| Citation | 1996CLC818 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | G. H. Malik, J |
| Parties | UNITED BANK LIMITED‑‑‑Plaintiff Versus Messrs HOOSAIN BHOY ABDOOLALLY BANDUKWALA LIMITED, |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996CLC818 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1996CLC818 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: G. H. Malik, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996CLC818 (PLP) (UNITED BANK LIMITED‑‑‑Plaintiff Versus Messrs HOOSAIN BHOY ABDOOLALLY BANDUKWALA LIMITED,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑OXXXIV, R. 5‑‑‑Application under OXXXIV, R.5, C.P.C. for final decree‑‑‑Preliminary decree admittedly still remained unsatisfied‑‑‑Counsel for defendants, however, claimed that proceedings for stay of operation of judgment in question, were pending before Supreme Court‑‑‑Plaintiff's counter plea was that hearing of application in question, was adjourned on similar grounds on previous date but no stay had been obtained by defendant‑‑‑No order to stay operation of decree having been passed in suit, application for passing of final decree was granted‑‑‑Decree in question,. however, would not be executed for period of three weeks, from date of the order of final decree to enable defendants to obtain order of stay. S. Mamnoon Hasan for Plaintiff. A.R. Akhtar for Defendants Nos 3, 4 and 5
Judgment & Decree
This is an application under Order 34, Rule 5, C.P.C. for final decree. I The fact that the preliminary decree has not been satisfied is not in dispute but Mr. A.R. Akhtar says that the proceedings for stay of the operation of the judgment are pending before the Supreme Court. Mr. S. Mamnoon Hasan points' out that the hearing of this application was adjourned on similar grounds on 23rd April, 1995. No stay has been obtained by the defendant. Mr. Akhtar, on the other hand, submits that the proceedings for stay were delayed because the I plaintiff sought adjournment to file counter‑affidavit. Be that as it may, the fact remains that there is no order to stay the operation of the decree passed in suit. This application is, therefore, granted. The decree shall, however, not be executed for the period of three weeks from today to enable the defendant to obtain order of stay. A.A./U‑171/K Order accordingly