1989 PLP 1708 (SCMR)
Messrs ECLIPSE DRY CLEANERS and another Petitioners Versus Messrs IMPERIAL CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES PAKISTAN
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1708 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | Messrs ECLIPSE DRY CLEANERS and another Petitioners Versus Messrs IMPERIAL CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES PAKISTAN |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1708 (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 1989 PLP 1708 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1708 (SCMR) (Messrs ECLIPSE DRY CLEANERS and another Petitioners Versus Messrs IMPERIAL CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES PAKISTAN). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mirza Nasir Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Hamid Aslam Oureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 27th April, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 20‑2‑1988 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in Writ Petition No.314 of 1988). ‑‑‑S.152‑‑Decree, correction of‑‑Plaintiff sought interest from a specified date till realization of the claimed amount which was allowed‑‑Due to typing/clerical error, no mention of interest was made in the decree prepared in pursuance of the judgment‑‑Defendant/judgment‑debtor objected that decree could not be corrected by the Executing Court though it was conceded that the Civil Court which prepared the decree could make the corrections‑‑Same Court which passed the decree was the Executing Court although the first presiding officer, in the meantime, had been transferred‑‑Held, objection was hypertechnical and was rightly ignored.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑The grievance in this petition for leave to appeal by a judgment‑debtor against a money decree, is that the interest on the decretal amount being recovered by the Executing Court, is without the support of the decree in that behalf.
2. It is not denied that the plaintiff/respondent had sought interest from a specified date till the realisation of the claimed amount. It is also not denied that interest was allowed in favour of the plaintiff/decree‑holder by the judgment, which was rendered against the petitioners. The only objection is that the typing/clerical error as a result of which no mention was made in the decree prepared in pursuance of' the said judgment, could not be corrected by the Executing Court‑‑though it is conceded that the Civil Court, which passed the decree, could make this correction. It is also contended that the grant of interest in the impugned judgment lacks clarity.
3. After hearing the learned counsel, we do not find any force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel. The same Court which passed the decree, is the Executing Court although the first presiding officer has, in meanwhile, been transferred. In any case it is a hypertechnical objection and has rightly been ignored. The second argument has no basis, the judgment rendered against the petitioner read with the plaint of the respondent does not leave anything vague/with regard to the interest. This petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. M.A.K./E‑14/S Petition dismissed.