2006 PLP 1519 (CLC)
others — Appellants Versus REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION, ISLAMABAD
| Citation | 2006 PLP 1519 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | others — Appellants Versus REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION, ISLAMABAD |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 1519 (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 2006 PLP 1519 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 1519 (CLC) (others — Appellants Versus REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION, ISLAMABAD). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sheikh Abid Aziz for Respondent No.1.
- Nemo for Respondent No.2.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 96
Both Counsel of patties, while placing on record photocopy of agreement entered between the parties, had stated that they would be sufficiently contended if the appeal be disposed of in terms of said agreement
In view of joint request of counsel for parties, appeal stood disposed of in terms of agreement arrived at between parties.
Judgment & Decree
Civil Miscellaneous No.1/C of 2005 Instant application has been filed on behalf of one Inam-ul-Haq for impleading him as respondent in the appeal (Regular First Appeal No.370 of 1998) on the ground that he is a highest bidder. It has been stated that during the execution proceedings, auction of Property (bearing No.S-SVIII-44-S-b (shop No.2) measuring 126 sq. ft. situated at Waseem Arcade, Zaildar Road, Ichhra, Lahore) was held, under the orders of the learned executing Court and the applicant was declared as highest bidder, however, the sale has not yet been confirmed. The case of the applicant is that in this manner he has acquired a valuable right in the property, therefore, he is a proper and necessary party in the appeal.
2. None has entered appearance to prosecute this petition.
3. Messrs Cotton Weavers (Pvt.) Limited, through the appeal (Regular First Appeal No.370 of 1998) has called in question judgment and decree dated 15-4-1998, whereby suit for recovery of Rs.38,125,139.99 along with costs, was decreed against the appellants. The applicant is neither a decree-holder nor a judgment-debtor. Had the appeal arisen out of execution proceedings, the applicant, perhaps, may have some case. In the present appeal, the only question to be decided by this Court is as to whether the impugned decree was rightly and legally passed against the appellants or not. No right of the applicant is involved in the appeal. We are of the view that the applicant is neither a necessary nor a proper party. Besides the fact that none has entered appearance to prosecute the instant application, the same is also devoid of merits and thus, stands dismissed. Main case
4. Both the learned counsel while placing on record photocopy of the agreement, dated 7-1-2005, statedly entered between the parties, state that they would be sufficiently contented if the present appeal is disposed of in terms of the said agreement.
5. In view of the joint request of the learned counsel for the parties the present appeal stands disposed of in terms of agreement, dated 7-1-2005, which is marked as Exh.C.l. H.B.T./C-17/L???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.