1981 PLP 1248 (CLC)
Civil Revision No. 175 of 1980
| Citation | 1981 PLP 1248 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Civil Revision No. 175 of 1980 |
| Primary Law | (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑, (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑, (d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1981 PLP 1248 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑, (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑, (d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1981 PLP 1248 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1981 PLP 1248 (CLC) (Civil Revision No. 175 of 1980). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ‑‑ O. III, r. 4‑Advocate‑Power to compromise‑Attorney appointing Advocate on behalf of respondent ‑ Respondent alleging Attorney himself had no power to admit claim and to compromise‑Held, attorney could not have authorised Advocate to compromise matter on behalf of respondent‑Since a delegatee can only delegate what has been conferred upon him and also authorised.‑[Counsel and client -Advocate].
- Maqbool Ahmed Khan for Petitioner.
- Abdul Ghafar Mangi for Respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 4.
- Azhar Ali Siddiqui for Respondent No. 3.
Headnotes / Summary
O. XXI, r. 29‑Object of rule to enable judgment‑debtor and decree‑holder to adjust their claims against each other and to prevent multiplicity of execution proceedings.
O. XXI, r. 29‑Security for stay of execution ‑ Third party claiming property mentioned for satisfaction of decree as its own --Decree‑holder alleging suit against him to be collusive to defeat compromise decree‑Held, investigation and consideration of facts will seriously prejudice petitioner and in circumstances, stay of execution proceedings should have been ordered on terms as to security.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑ O. III, r. 4‑Advocate‑Power to compromise‑Attorney appointing Advocate on behalf of respondent ‑ Respondent alleging Attorney himself had no power to admit claim and to compromise‑Held, attorney could not have authorised Advocate to compromise matter on behalf of respondent‑Since a delegatee can only delegate what has been conferred upon him and also authorised.‑[Counsel and client -Advocate]. Anwar Hussain Rizvi v. Mazahir Hussain Zaidi 1971 S C M R 634 ref. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑
O. XXI, r. 29‑Object of rule to enable judgment‑debtor and decree‑holder to adjust their claims against each other and to prevent multiplicity of execution proceedings. Kannammal v. Muthukumasraswami Chetty A I R 1936 Mad. 102 ref. (d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑
O. XXI, r. 29‑Security for stay of execution ‑ Third party claiming property mentioned for satisfaction of decree as its own --Decree‑holder alleging suit against him to be collusive to defeat compromise decree‑Held, investigation and consideration of facts will seriously prejudice petitioner and in circumstances, stay of execution proceedings should have been ordered on terms as to security. Maqbool Ahmed Khan for Petitioner. Abdul Ghafar Mangi for Respondents Nos. 1, 2 and
4. Azhar Ali Siddiqui for Respondent No.