2004 PLP 856 (CLC)
GHULAM RASOOL‑‑‑Decree‑holder Versus ABDUL RASHEED and others‑‑‑Judgment‑debtor,
| Citation | 2004 PLP 856 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Shabbir Ahmed, J |
| Parties | GHULAM RASOOL‑‑‑Decree‑holder Versus ABDUL RASHEED and others‑‑‑Judgment‑debtor, |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 856 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 856 (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: 2004 PLP 856 (CLC) (GHULAM RASOOL‑‑‑Decree‑holder Versus ABDUL RASHEED and others‑‑‑Judgment‑debtor,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 47 & O.XXI, Rr.23‑A, 58‑‑‑Execution of decree‑‑‑Application for restoration of possession‑‑‑Possession was handed over to decree‑holder, in pursuance of execution of decree‑‑‑One of the judgment‑debtors filed an application for restoration of possession with the plea that he was in possession of the plot in dispute when its possession was taken from him‑‑‑Official Assignee after examining bailiff and considering affidavits of bailiff and parties, submitted detailed report wherein he stated that possession of property, restoration of which was sought by one of judgment debtor, was handed over to the decree‑holder by bailiff‑‑‑Plea of applicant/judgment‑debtor was not tenable, in circumstances and possession could not be restored‑‑‑Said judgment debtor was prosecuting his own suit before District Court for specific performance of contract; unless his right was matured its possession could not be restored. Nisar A. Mujahid for Decree‑holder. Muhammad Anwar Tariq for Applicant. Mukhtiar Ahmed Mughal for Judgment‑debtor.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S. 47 & O.XXI, Rr.23‑A, 58‑‑‑Execution of decree‑‑‑Application for restoration of possession‑‑‑Possession was handed over to decree‑holder, in pursuance of execution of decree‑‑‑One of the judgment‑debtors filed an application for restoration of possession with the plea that he was in possession of the plot in dispute when its possession was taken from him‑‑‑Official Assignee after examining bailiff and considering affidavits of bailiff and parties, submitted detailed report wherein he stated that possession of property, restoration of which was sought by one of judgment debtor, was handed over to the decree‑holder by bailiff‑‑‑Plea of applicant/judgment‑debtor was not tenable, in circumstances and possession could not be restored‑‑‑Said judgment debtor was prosecuting his own suit before District Court for specific performance of contract; unless his right was matured its possession could not be restored. Nisar A. Mujahid for Decree‑holder. Muhammad Anwar Tariq for Applicant. Mukhtiar Ahmed Mughal for Judgment‑debtor. 1 and 2 In pursuance of the execution of decree the possession was handed over to the decree‑holder from the defendant/J.D. The applicant Muhammad Akbar filed an application for restoration of the possession with the plea that he was in possession which was taken from him. By order, dated 14‑4‑2003, the O/A was directed to examine the contention of the parties and also to examine the bailiff, who has handed over the possession to the decree‑holder. Affidavit of the bailiff and the parties were filed and learned O/A submitted his detailed report that a portion which was in possession of Muhammad Yousuf, was handed over, to D/H by bailiff. The plea of the applicant Muhammad Akbar in such circumstances is not tenable. The possession cannot be restored. The applicant is prosecuting his own suit before District Court for specific performance of contract, Therefore, unless his right is matured even on that plea possession cannot be restored. The application is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. H.B.T./G‑159/K Application dismissed