1989 PLP 1688 (CLC)
Before Sajjad Ali Shah arid Saleem Akhtar, JJ Versus MUHAMMAD AZIM and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1688 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Sajjad Ali Shah arid Saleem Akhtar, JJ |
| Parties | Before Sajjad Ali Shah arid Saleem Akhtar, JJ Versus MUHAMMAD AZIM and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1688 (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 1989 PLP 1688 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Sajjad Ali Shah arid Saleem Akhtar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1688 (CLC) (Before Sajjad Ali Shah arid Saleem Akhtar, JJ Versus MUHAMMAD AZIM and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Dastgir Ghazi for Respondent No.l.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S.151‑‑According to judgment in appeal dictated in open Court undertaking was given by applicant that decretal amount would be paid by him within a period of six weeks and till then bungalow of applicant would remain attached‑ Applicant after more than one month from order of Appellate Court prayed by fling application that grace period of six weeks allowed by Court be counted from date of issuance of certified copy of said judgment because he was unable to comply with order of Court as he could obtain certified copy of judgment after considerable delay‑‑Judgment having been dictated in open Court explanation given by applicant was not satisfactory. Appellant in person.
Judgment & Decree
Appellant in person. Dastgir Ghazi for Respondent No.l. SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.‑‑Mr. Habibur Rehman, Advocate is present in the Court and states that he is no more appearing for the appellant who has taken away the brief from him. It is requested by the learned counsel that his name should not appear in the cause list in future so far this case is concerned. Order accordingly. This appeal was finally disposed of by the judgment of Division Bench passed on 17th February, 1988 whereby the appeal has been dismissed maintaining the judgment and decree, passed by the learned Single Judge with modification. According to the judgment in appeal, appellant had undertaken before the Court to pay the decretal amount within six weeks and had also given undertaking not to dispose of his Bungalow which had been attached till the payment of decretal amount. Now an application has been filed by the appellant under section 151, C.P.C. which is dated 20‑3‑1988 in which the prayer is that six weeks grace period as allowed by the appellate Court be counted from the date of issue of certified copy of judgment which was passed on 17‑2‑1988. Reason given in application is that compliance could not be made by the appellant of the direction contained in the judgment for the reason that efforts were made to obtain certified copy of the order which was obtained with considerable delay and lawyers consulted by the appellant also expressed their inability to take further steps without first seeing certified copy of the judgment. This explanation is unsatisfactory for the reason that the judgment appears to have been dictated in the open Court on 17‑2‑1988 as is admitted by Mr. Habibur Rehman and Mr. Dastgir who were appearing for the parties. Undertaking given by the appellant is also crystal clear that decretal amount would be paid within a period of six weeks till then Bungalow of appellant would remain attached. We are not satisfied with the explanation which is unacceptable and there is no merit in this application which is hereby dismissed. H.B.T./Z‑82/K Application dismissed.