2007 PLP 308 (MLD)
ABDUL JABBAR KHAN — Appellant Versus JAWWAD HAFEEZ — Respondent
| Citation | 2007 PLP 308 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ABDUL JABBAR KHAN — Appellant Versus JAWWAD HAFEEZ — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 308 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP 308 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 308 (MLD) (ABDUL JABBAR KHAN — Appellant Versus JAWWAD HAFEEZ — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Imtiaz Mahmood for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
O.XXI, R.1
Parties entered into a compromise according to which a sum of Rs.62,000 was admitted to have been paid by judgment-debtor for discharge of decree
Out of balance amount of 2,98,000, a sum of Rs.70,000 was paid on the same day before the Court and rest was to be paid in monthly instalments amounting to Rs.10,000
Appellant filed objection petition with the prayer that amount of Rs.62,000 paid by him other than under agreement be also adjusted towards the discharge of his liability which objection petition was dismissed by Additional District Judge
Settlement which was arrived at between the parties, had taken care of said amount of Rs.62,000 already paid by appellant and was to incorporate in settlement arrived at between parties and remaining amount was to be paid by appellant in terms of agreement which was Rs.2,98,000
Amount of Rs.62,000 being sought to be adjusted by appellant was an attempt to get same re-adjusted for second time which was not possible.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD KHALID ALVI, J.
Brief facts of this appeal are that a decree in the sum of Rs.3,60,000 was passed in favour of the respondent. Through the execution of the said decree, parties entered into a compromise on 12-12-2000. According to the said compromise deed a sum of Rs.62,000 was admitted to have been paid by the judgment-debtor for discharge of decree while out of balance amount of Rs.2,98,000 a sum of Rs.70,000 was paid by the appellant on the same day before the Court and rest of the amount was to be paid in monthly instalments amounting to Rs.10,000 w,c.f. February, 2001. The appellant on 25-5-2004 filed an objection petition with a prayer that an amount of Rs.62,000 paid by him other than under the agreement be also adjusted towards the discharge of his liability. This petition stands dismissed vide order, dated 2-2-2005 by the learned Additional District Judge. This order is being assailed through the instant appeal. 2. (Sic)
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the observation of the learned lower Court that previously a similar application has been dismissed is contrary to the record. The objection petition is to be treated like a suit and after recording evidence the same deserved to be decided afresh.
4. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order.
5. We have gone through the relevant record and have considered the argument of the learned counsel for the parties.
6. In para. 2 of the objection petition the detail of Rs.62,000 being sought to be adjusted is given:-- (i) Rs.20,000 paid on 3-2-2000 (ii) Rs. 10,000 paid on 7-2-2000 (iii) Rs.32,000 paid on 17-6-2000 The total of the above-said amount comes to be Rs.62,000 which is sought to be adjusted in the amount of Rs.2,98,000 as agreed through agreement, dated 12-12-2000. Para. 2 of the said agreement contemplates that of total decreed amount a sum of Rs.62,000 already stands paid by judgment-debtor and the balance is left to the tune of Rs.2,98,000 which was to be paid by the appellant on and after 12-12-2000. Meaning thereby that settlement which was arrived at between the parties on 12-12-2000 had taken care of the amount of A Rs.62,000 already paid by the appellant in the month of February and June, 2000 and was so incorporated in para. 2 of the said agreement. The remaining amount was to be paid by the appellant in terms of the agreement which is Rs.2,98,
000. Thus the amount now being sought to be adjusted by the appellant is an attempt to get the same re-adjusted for the second time which is not possible. Resultantly, finding no merit in this appeal the same is accordingly dismissed. H.B.T./A-240/L Appeal dismissed.