1984 PLP 1167 (SCMR)
FARID-UZ-ZAFAR AND OTHERS-Petitioners Versus GHULAM MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER-Respondents
| Citation | 1984 PLP 1167 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | FARID-UZ-ZAFAR AND OTHERS-Petitioners Versus GHULAM MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 1167 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 1167 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 1167 (SCMR) (FARID-UZ-ZAFAR AND OTHERS-Petitioners Versus GHULAM MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Abdur Rashid, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Gulzar Hassan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 20th May, 1984.
- Sh. Abdur Rashid, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Gulzar Hassan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the Judgment, dated 13-4-1976 of the Lahore High Court in R. F. A. No. 30 of 1975). --Art. 185(3)-Execution proceedings-Limitation-Pleas raised meant to assist petitioners to escape from their obligations under a decree which they solemnly undertook to satisfy-Held, such pleas cannot induce Court to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction of granting leave to appeal-Petition dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
Sh. Abdur Rashid, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Gulzar Hassan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing : 20th May, 1984. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑A decree was granted against the petitioners on 17‑10‑1967. During the course of the execution proceedings, on 16‑12‑1969, the parties arrived at a compromise whereby the respondents agreed to pay the decretal amount within two months, after selling their land and the execution proceedings were stayed for a period of two months i. e. upto 16‑2‑1970. The respondents, however, failed to abide by their commitment, constraining the petitioners to move for execution again. The proper application in this behalf was submitted on 2nd September, 1974. The question arose whether this application was within time? The learned Judge in the High Court appears to have held that the period taken is connection with the execution proceedings upto the date when the compromise was effected and two months' time granted for the satisfaction of the decree i. e. upto 16‑2‑1970 need not be counted and that the time began to run only after the failure of the petitioners to satisfy the decree i. e. after 16‑2‑1970. On this hypothesis the application submitted on 2nd September, 1974 being within six years was, therefore, within time. Sh. Abdul Rashid, learned counsel for the petitioners, attempted to argue that the period consumed in the first stage of the execution proceed ings i. e. upto 16‑2‑1970 could not be excluded because the execution of the decree was not stayed by the order, dated 16‑12‑1979. This does not appear to be a correct appreciation of the situation. In any case, such pleas cannot induce us to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction of granting leave to appeal to assist the petitioners to escape from their obligations under a decree, which they solemnly undertook to satisfy. This is, therefore, not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal. S. Q. Petition dismissed.