1994 PLP 386 (SCMR)
PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Collector, Rawalpindi ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ZAFAR ALI SHAH‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1994 PLP 386 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry, Sajjad Ali Shah and |
| Parties | PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Collector, Rawalpindi ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ZAFAR ALI SHAH‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 386 (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 1994 PLP 386 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry, Sajjad Ali Shah and.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 386 (SCMR) (PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Collector, Rawalpindi ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ZAFAR ALI SHAH‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Gulzar Ahmed Oureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and Rao M. Yousuf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Sardar M. Aslam, Advocate Supreme Court and Khan Imtiaz M. Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 10th October, 1993.
- WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN, J: ‑‑The Province of Punjab through Collector Rawalpindi seeks leave to appeal against the orders dated 5‑4‑1993 passed in C.M. No. 464‑C/9j and dated 6‑2‑1993 passed in C.M. No. 452‑C/92 in R.FA. No. 28 of 1992, whereby the learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court declined to stay the. execution of the sale‑deed in execution of the decree for specific performance passed by the trial Court viz., Civil Judge 1st Class, Rawalpindi dated 9‑6‑1992 and on the undertaking of Mr. Anwar Baig, Advocate, counsel for the plaintiff/decree‑holder/respondent, that his client, in case of acceptance of the appeal shall vacate the premises and shall hand over its possession, refused to stay the execution proceedings and suspend the operation of the decree.
- We have heard Mr. Gulzar Ahmed Qureshi, Advocate for the petitioner; Sardar Muhammad Aslam, Advocate, for the respondent; and have perused the record to the case.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment/order dated 5‑4‑1993 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi passed in CM No: 464/C/93 and !~ dated 6‑2‑1993 in CM No. 452‑C/92 both in RAF No. 28/92). ‑‑‑‑O.XXI, R. 32 & O.XLI, R. 5‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Execution of decree for specific performance of contract‑‑ Defendant's application for staying execution proceedings had been dismissed by the High Court on the undertaking given by plaintiff that in the event of acceptance of appeal he would vacate premises and deliver possession of same to defendant‑‑‑Such guarantee having safeguarded defendant's rights to' be restored to possession on the acceptance of appeal, there was no legal error in the impugned order of High Court‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑O.XXI, R. 32 & O.XLI, R. 5‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Execution of decree for specific performance of contract‑‑ Defendant's application for staying execution proceedings had been dismissed by the High Court on the undertaking given by plaintiff that in the event of acceptance of appeal he would vacate premises and deliver possession of same to defendant‑‑‑Such guarantee having safeguarded defendant's rights to' be restored to possession on the acceptance of appeal, there was no legal error in the impugned order of High Court‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances. Gulzar Ahmed Oureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and Rao M. Yousuf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Sardar M. Aslam, Advocate Supreme Court and Khan Imtiaz M. Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent. Date of hearing: 10th October, 1993. WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN, J: ‑‑The Province of Punjab through Collector Rawalpindi seeks leave to appeal against the orders dated 5‑4‑1993 passed in C.M. No. 464‑C/9j and dated 6‑2‑1993 passed in C.M. No. 452‑C/92 in R.FA. No. 28 of 1992, whereby the learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court declined to stay the. execution of the sale‑deed in execution of the decree for specific performance passed by the trial Court viz., Civil Judge 1st Class, Rawalpindi dated 9‑6‑1992 and on the undertaking of Mr. Anwar Baig, Advocate, counsel for the plaintiff/decree‑holder/respondent, that his client, in case of acceptance of the appeal shall vacate the premises and shall hand over its possession, refused to stay the execution proceedings and suspend the operation of the decree. We have heard Mr. Gulzar Ahmed Qureshi, Advocate for the petitioner; Sardar Muhammad Aslam, Advocate, for the respondent; and have perused the record to the case. The learned Civil Judge through its judgment dated 9‑6‑1992 decreed the suit of the plaintiff/respondent for declaration and injunction and specific performance of the contract with respect to the suit land measuring 8 Marlas and annulled the Cancellation Order No. 1227‑A/AC (S) dated 7‑8‑1989 holding it illegal and void. The appeal filed against it before the High Court is pending disposal. However, the application of the petitioner under Order 41 Rule 5, C.P.C. for staying the execution proceedings has been dismissed on the undertaking given by the respondent that in the event of acceptance of the appeal he will vacate the premises and deliver its possession to the petitioner. In view of this guarantee the rights of the petitioner to be restored to the possession on the acceptance of appeal have been granted. We do not find any legal error in the impugned orders of the High Court and decline to grant leave. The petition is accordingly dismissed. A.A./P‑216/S Leave refused.