1989 PLP 341 (MLD)
PAKISTAN RAILWAYS‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. RASHEED AKHTAR and 2 others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 341 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Sharif, J |
| Parties | PAKISTAN RAILWAYS‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. RASHEED AKHTAR and 2 others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 341 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 341 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Sharif, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 341 (MLD) (PAKISTAN RAILWAYS‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. RASHEED AKHTAR and 2 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shamshir Iqbal Chaughtai for Petitioner.
- Abdus Sattar Chaudhry for Respondent No. 1.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S.24‑‑Transfer of execution petition‑‑Nexus between execution petition sought to be transferred and cases pending before Court at place `B' regarding same property existed‑‑Propriety demands that execution petition should also be heard by same Court‑‑Execution petition pending at place `H' was transferred to Court at place `B' in circumstances. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 in person.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S.24‑‑Transfer of execution petition‑‑Nexus between execution petition sought to be transferred and cases pending before Court at place `B' regarding same property existed‑‑Propriety demands that execution petition should also be heard by same Court‑‑Execution petition pending at place `H' was transferred to Court at place `B' in circumstances. Shamshir Iqbal Chaughtai for Petitioner. Abdus Sattar Chaudhry for Respondent No.
1. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 in person. Respondents No. 2 and 3 do trot object to the transfer of the case, It has, however, been objected to by the learned counsel for respondent No. 1, who has submitted that the question of title may be decided by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bahawalpur and since respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are tenants, the execution petition may be disposed of by the present executing Court. Since there is a nexus between the execution petition and the cases pending before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bahawalpur, regarding the same property, so the propriety demands that this petition should also be heard by the same Court. The execution petition is, therefore, transferred from the Court of Civil Judge, Hasilpur to the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Bahawalpur. The petition stands disposed of. Both the Courts may be informed accordingly. H.B.T./P‑60/L Petition transferred.