1969 PLP 138 (SCMR)
ALLAH DITTA ETC.‑Petitioners Versus GHULAM NABI ETC.‑Respondents
| Citation | 1969 PLP 138 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Hamoodur Rahman and Muhammad Yaqub Ali, JJ |
| Parties | ALLAH DITTA ETC.‑Petitioners Versus GHULAM NABI ETC.‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1969 PLP 138 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1969 PLP 138 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Hamoodur Rahman and Muhammad Yaqub Ali, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1969 PLP 138 (SCMR) (ALLAH DITTA ETC.‑Petitioners Versus GHULAM NABI ETC.‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Aftab Hussain Sheikh, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (Mian Bashir Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Muhammad Mehdi Anwar, Attorney for Petitioners.
- Muhammad Anwar Buttar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Abid A. Buttar, Attorney for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 29th October 1968.
Headnotes / Summary
(In the matter of vacation of stay order only) Execution of decree
‑Symbolical delivery of possession in execution proceeding‑As good as actual physical possession.
Judgment & Decree
‑Symbolical delivery of possession in execution proceeding‑As good as actual physical possession. Aftab Hussain Sheikh, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (Mian Bashir Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Muhammad Mehdi Anwar, Attorney for Petitioners. Muhammad Anwar Buttar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Abid A. Buttar, Attorney for Respondents. Date of hearing : 29th October 1968. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, J.‑This is an application for vacation of the stay order granted by this Court on the 27th June 1968, while admitting the petition for special leave to appeal. The stay was in respect of the execution of a decree for possession passed by the trial Court on the 28th May 1951 and confirmed by the High Court on the 28th May 1953. It is now stated in the application for vacation of the stay order that the decree was executed and possession was delivered on the 19th April 1968. In support of this a copy of the Roznamcha Waqiati Report dated the 20th April 1968, is also filed. This fact was not disclosed to the Court at the time the stay order was obtained on the 27th June 1968. There was nothing to stay at that time. The learned counsel for the petitioners, however, sought to contend that the execution levied was only symbolical and in any event, was illegal. Symbolical possession against a party to the proceedings is, of course, as good as actual physical possession but if there is any illegality in the execution, that is a matter to be agitated before the executing Court. After execution had been levied and possession delivered, the stay order could not be operative, and if this fact had been dis closed to the Court the stay order, would not have been granted. In the circumstances we hereby vacate the stay order. Stay vacated.