1983 PLP 2864 (CLC)
Malik MUHAMMAD YASEEN‑Applicant Versus COMMERCE BANK LTD.‑Respondent
| Citation | 1983 PLP 2864 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Ajmal Mian, J |
| Parties | Malik MUHAMMAD YASEEN‑Applicant Versus COMMERCE BANK LTD.‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 2864 (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 1983 PLP 2864 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Ajmal Mian, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 PLP 2864 (CLC) (Malik MUHAMMAD YASEEN‑Applicant Versus COMMERCE BANK LTD.‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Kazi Zia‑ul‑Haq for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 18th November, 1982.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑ O. XXI, r. 23(a) read with S. 51‑Payment of money decree Default‑Executing Court, held, not empowered to keep judgment debtor in civil prison for his failure to furnish security‑Court obliged to apply its mind to facts of case and come to conclusions whether for purposes of execution of money decree detention in civil prison of judgment‑debtor is required. Riaz Ahmed for Applicant.
Judgment & Decree
Riaz Ahmed for Applicant. Kazi Zia‑ul‑Haq for Respondent. Date of hearing : 18th November, 1982. This is a revision application filed by the Judgment‑Debtor against the order dated 5th August, 1982 passed by the learned I1nd Additional District Judge, Hyderabad, in Execution No. 35/74. It seems that the respon dent/D.H. filed the aforesaid execution application for execution of a money decree for a sum of Rs.49,
799. The execution of the decree was sought through detention of the Judgment‑Debtor in civil prison. After the issuance of a notice by the Executing Court, the applicant filed objections to the above execution application. However, the objections were not entertained on the ground that in view of the amendment under Order XXI, rule 23‑A, C. P. C. the Judgment‑Debtor is obliged either to deposit the decretal amount or to furnish security, Accordingly the judgment‑debtor was given an opportunity for furnishing the security. It seems that the Judgment‑Debtor failed to furnish the security and, therefore, the learned Additional District Judge passed the aforesaid order granting the execution application as prayed for and ordering the arrest of the Judgment‑Debtor. The applicant/judgment‑debtor being aggrieved by the above ‑ order has filed the present revision application.
2. In support of the above application Mr. Riaz Ahmed learned counsel for the applicant, has urged that under section 51 of the Civil Procedure Code, it was incumbent upon the learned Execution Court to record the reasons for ordering the detention of the Judgment‑Debtor in Civil Prison for executing the money decree. On the other hand it has been urged by Mr. Kazi Zia‑ul‑Haq that the applicant will have still an opportunity to contest the order before the Executing Court. In my view the default on the part of the applicant in furnishing the security in terms of the Order XXI, rule 23‑A, C. P. C. does not entitle the Executing Court to grant the application of the respondents as prayed for i.e. to keep the applicant in Civil Prison for the execution of the money decree. Under section 51 an Executing Court is obliged to apply its mind to the facts of the case and to come to the conclusion as to whether it was a fit case for execution of money decree by detaining the Judgment‑Debtor in civil prison.. The learned Executing Court in the instant case has not adverted to this aspect. 1, therefore, allow the revision application and set aside the order and remand the case to the learned Executing Court with the direction to examine the above question afresh and to pass an order in accordance with law. In the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs. M. Y. M. Petition allowed.