1988 PLP 1801 (SCMR)
NAZOO — Petitioner Versus HASSU KHAN and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1801 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | NAZOO — Petitioner Versus HASSU KHAN and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1801 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 1801 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 1801 (SCMR) (NAZOO — Petitioner Versus HASSU KHAN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 18th July, 1988.
- Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 1-11-1980 in Civil Revision No.141 of 1973).
S.47, O.XX, R.14 & O.XXI--Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913), S.21--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Execution of decree--Pre-emption matter--Petitioner's application for execution of decree having been dismissed for default he succeeded out of Court in getting possession--Vendee-judgment debtor and plaintiff /pre-emptor claiming land during consolidation proceedings--Petitioner filed suit for declaration with regard to ownership of land in dispute which was decreed by trial Court--Respondent's appeal accepted on ground of bar contained in S.47, C.P.C. and decision affirmed in Revision- Leave to appeal granted to examine, inter alia, provisions contained in S.47 C . P. C . together with provisions contained in O. XXI, C . P. C . with regard to execution of decrees jointly with O.XX, R.14, C.P.C. whether petitioner could not be allowed relief claimed by him when his application for execution of decree was dismissed for default.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J,‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by a plaintiff‑decree holder in a pre‑emption matter against the dismissal of his Civil Revision by the High Court, which had arisen out of a controversy regarding so‑called execution of the said t decree. It seems that the petitioner's formal application for execution of decree was dismissed for default but according to some findings on record, he had succeeded out of Court, in getting the possession of the land. The formal execution having not taken place, both the sides the vendee‑judgment debtor and the plaintiff‑pre‑emptor/ decree‑holder claimed the land in dispute during consolidation proceedings. The petitioner in order to achieve success in those proceedings was compelled to file another suit for declaration with regard to his ownership of the land in dispute by virtue of the aforementioned decree. It was decreed in his favour. The respondents' appeal was accepted on ground of bar contained in section 47, C . P . C . Petitioner's Civil Revision having been dismissed, leave to appeal has now been sought. After hearing the learned counsel, we feel that no doubt that the provisions contained in section 47, C.P.C. were relevant for examination. But they had to be considered together with the provisions contained in Order XXI, C.P.C. with regard to the execution of decrees, jointly with Order XX, R.14, C.P.C. regarding execution of pre‑emption decrees. It has also to be noticed that according to the findings, the petitioner was found in possession of land though according to the High Court long after the decree was passed in his favour. If so, it would further require examination; whether the petitioner having come into possession out of Court after the aforesaid decree for possession through pre‑emption had been passed in his favour, could not be allowed the relief claimed by him. The ground that his application for execution was dismissed for default also needs examination. These questions and the others raised in this petition require examination. Leave to appeal accordingly is granted. Security Rs.5,
000. Appeal shall be prepared on the present record with direction to the parties concerned to file all necessary additional documents. M.I./N‑86/S Leave granted.