1999 PLP 2628 (SCMR)
Rao TAMKEEN ALI KHAN — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM and others — Respondents -~
| Citation | 1999 PLP 2628 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Irshad Hasan Khan and Ch. Muhammad Arif, JJ |
| Parties | Rao TAMKEEN ALI KHAN — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM and others — Respondents -~ |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP 2628 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1999 PLP 2628 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Irshad Hasan Khan and Ch. Muhammad Arif, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999 PLP 2628 (SCMR) (Rao TAMKEEN ALI KHAN — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM and others — Respondents -~). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ----O. XXI, R. 10---Execution application---Dismissal---Execution applications were not fixed for hearing on date when same were dismissed for non- prosecution, but the date was fixed for submission of report by Bailiff of Court---Executing Court and High Court were not right in dismissing execution application and revision petition respectively on erroneous assumption that counsel. for petitioners was not present on date of hearing.
- Muhammad Yousaf Asim, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate-ofi-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 8th July, 1998.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 12-5-1997 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore in Civil Revisions Nos. 490 to 496 of 1997).
Judgment & Decree
IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.
Through this common order we intend to dispose of Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal Nos. 981-L to 987-L of 1997, arising out of a consolidated judgment dated 12-5-1997, passed in Civil Revisions Nos.490 to 496 of 1997.
2. The execution applications filed by the petitioner for execution of the decree dated 20th April, 1990, passed by Civil Judge, Chunian, District Kasur, were dismissed for non-prosecution by order dated 26th of November, 1992.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Ch. Muhammad Anwar, learned Counsel for the respondents/caveator and find that the execution applications were not fixed for hearing on 26-11-1992 and it was only for the submission of the report, after seeking police assistance, by the bailiff of the Civil Court. Thus, visualized, the executing Court was wrong in dismissing the execution petitions and not restoring the same on application moved by the petitioner. The learned Judge in Chambers was also wrong in dismissing the revision petitions filed by the petitioner on the erroneous assumption that the counsel for the petitioner was not present on the date of hearing.
4. We, therefore, convert these petitions into appeals and allowing the same set aside the orders of the Courts below and remit the case to the executing Court to dispose of the execution applications in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear before the executing Court on 27th July, 1998. H.B.T./T-8/S Petitions allowed.