P L D 1972 Peshawar 142 (PLP)
QUTAB KHAN‑Petitioner Versus SAIN SULTAN AND 3 OTHERS‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1972 Peshawar 142 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Shah Zaman Babar, J |
| Parties | QUTAB KHAN‑Petitioner Versus SAIN SULTAN AND 3 OTHERS‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1972 Peshawar 142 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1972 Peshawar 142 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Shah Zaman Babar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1972 Peshawar 142 (PLP) (QUTAB KHAN‑Petitioner Versus SAIN SULTAN AND 3 OTHERS‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Q. Abdur Rashid Khan for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Afzal Khan Bangash for Respondent No. 1.
- Dates of hearing: 18th and 30th May 1972.
Headnotes / Summary
West Pakistan Relief of Indebtedness Ordinance (XV of 1960), Ss. 5 & 2(b), (c) and Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 35‑--Expression "in execution of a decree for money" in S. S of Ordinance‑--Includes execution of order for money awarded as "costs" in a suit. The expression "in execution of a decree for money" used in section 5 of the West Pakistan Relief of Indebtedness Ordi nance, 1960 includes execution of order for money awarded as costs in a suit. Section 2(b) of the Ordinance defines debt and provides that "debt" includes all liabilities of a debtor in cash or in kind, secured or unsecured payable under a decree or order of a civil Court or otherwise, whether mature or not. A debt, therefore, includes all liabilities of a debtor in cash secured under a decree or order of the civil Court or otherwise. 'Costs' in law means the amount of money ordered by the Court to be paid to a successful party, in a legal proceedings while passing judgment or order. An order of costs passed under section 35, C. P. C., is, therefore, a part of the decree in relation to which it is passed, and in substance is a decree for money. The same order is executable as if it is a decree for money, and the provisions of the Code relating to the execution of decree for money shall be applicable to the execution of such orders of costs. Where the judgment‑debtor is a debtor under the Ordinance he would be immune from arrest or imprisonment in execution of the decrees for costs.
Judgment & Decree
Decree No.
1. Decree in Original Suits. (O. XX, rr. 6, 7) (Title) Claim for‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑. This suit coming on this day for final disposal before‑‑ in the presence of‑‑‑‑‑for the plaintiff and of‑‑‑‑‑.for the defendant, it is ordered and decreed that‑‑‑‑and that the sum of Rs.‑‑ ‑be paid by the‑‑‑‑‑to the on account of the costs of this suit, with interest thereon at the rate of‑‑‑‑per cent. Per annum from the date of realization. Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, this‑ day of‑‑‑‑‑
19. Judge. Costs of suits Plaintiff | Defendant Rs. a. p. Rs. a. p. 1 Stamp for plaint Stamp for power 2 Do. for power Do. for petition 3 Do. for exhibits Pleader's fee 4 Pleader's fee on Rs. Subsistence for witnesses 5 Subsistence for witness. Service of process 6 Commissioner's fee Commissioner's fee 7 Service of process. Total Total According to Order XX, rule 6 (21, C. P. C. and this Form, an order as to the account of costs of suit forms part of a decree. Rule 30 of Order XXI, C. P. C. provides: "Every decree for the payment of money, including a decree for the payment of money as the alternative to some other relief, may be executed by detention in the civil prison of the judgment‑debtor, or by the attachment and sale of his property, or by the both." From the discussion of the above provisions of C. P. C., in the absence of any reported case‑law on the point, to my knowledge, nor has been cited any, I am inclined to hold the view that an order of costs passed under section 35, C. P. C. is a part of the decree in relation to which it is passed, and in substance is a decree for money. The same order is executable as if ft is a decree for money, and the provisions of the Code relating to t the execution of decree for money shall be applicable to the execution of such orders of costs. The petitioner judgment -debtor being a debtor under the Ordinance is, therefore, immune from arrest or imprisonment in execution of the decrees for costs. In the result, I accept the revision petition, set aside the orders of the two Courts below, and hold that the petitioner will be immune from arrest or imprisonment in the execution of the decree for costs filed by the decree‑holder. Parties to bear their own costs. K. B. A. Petition accepted