2008 PLP 1583 (CLC)
MUHAMMAD ASHRAF — Petitioner Versus Mst. SAFIA BIBI — Respondent
| Citation | 2008 PLP 1583 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Maulvi Anwarul Haq, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASHRAF — Petitioner Versus Mst. SAFIA BIBI — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 1583 (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 2008 PLP 1583 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Maulvi Anwarul Haq, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 1583 (CLC) (MUHAMMAD ASHRAF — Petitioner Versus Mst. SAFIA BIBI — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Anwarul Haq for Petitioner.
- Syed Israr Bokhari for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 27th July, 2005.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 51, 115 & O.XXI, R.40
Detention of a judgment-debtor could be ordered in accordance with S.51 read with O.XXI, R.40, C.P.C.
Condition precedent for passing detention order was a finding to be recorded by the court to the effect that it was satisfied that any of the circumstances mentioned in sub-clauses (a)(i)(ii) to the Proviso to S.51, C.P.C. read with explanation thereto, existed
No such finding having been recorded by the Trial Court, impugned order whereby petitioner/judgment-debtor was sent to civil prison, was set aside
Executing Court would strictly proceed in accordance with said provisions of law, if the decree-holder wanted judgment-debtor to be detained.
Judgment & Decree
MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.
A decree for recovery of money passed in favour of the respondent and against the petitioner is being executed by a learned ADJ, Layyah, who proceeded to arrest the petitioner and sent him to civil prison vide order dated 13-4-2005.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order having been passed without complying with the mandatory provisions of law is without jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, tries to support the impugned order by stating that the petitioner is not paying the decretal amount.
3. I have examined the copies of the records. I find that the execution application was filed on 4-6-2004 on which date a notice was issued to the petitioner for 2-7-2004. On this date it was noted that the petitioner has refused to accept service. Bailable warrants for his arrest were issued for 23-7-2004. On this date, non-bailable warrants for his arrest were issued for 20-8-2004. Ultimately, the order dated 13-4-2005 was passed.
4. The detention of a judgment-debtor can be ordered in accordance with section 51 read with Order XXI, rule 40, C.P.C. The condition precedent for passing such an order is a finding to be recorded by the Court to the effect that it is satisfied that any of the circumstances mentioned in sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) to the proviso to section 51 A C.P.C. read with explanation thereto exists. I do not find any such finding recorded by the learned trial Court. The impugned order accordingly is set aside. The civil revision is allowed. The learned Executing Court shall proceed strictly in accordance with the said provisions of law if the decree-holder wants him to be detained. No orders as to costs. H.B.T./M-277/L Petition allowed.