1987 PLP 1009 (CLC)
S.M. SAYEED‑‑Applicant Versus Mst. RASHIDA KHATOON and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 1009 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Zahoorul Haq, J |
| Parties | S.M. SAYEED‑‑Applicant Versus Mst. RASHIDA KHATOON and another‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 1009 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 1009 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Muhammad Zahoorul Haq, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 1009 (CLC) (S.M. SAYEED‑‑Applicant Versus Mst. RASHIDA KHATOON and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Siddiq Mazhari for Respondent No.l.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑O. XXII, R. 12‑‑Bar of applicability to execution proceedings whether also applicable to appeals from such proceedings‑‑Bar under R.12 of O.XXII C.P.C. applicable to execution proceedings, held, would also be applicable to appeals from such execution proceedings. P L D 1973 Lah. 695 ref. Abdul Majid Khan for Applicant.
Judgment & Decree
P L D 1973 Lah. 695 ref. Abdul Majid Khan for Applicant. Muhammad Siddiq Mazhari for Respondent No.l. The applicant has sought to implead the legal heirs of respondent No.l in this Civil Revision. Mr. Siddiq Mazhari has contended for the L/Rs of respondent No.l that since this matter arises out of execution proceedings, therefore, the present application is not competent in view of rule 12 of Order XXII, C.P.C. The said provision reads as under:‑-- Rules 3, 4 and 8 shall apply to the proceedings in execution of a decree or order." Mr. Abdul Majid Khan has relied upon P L D 1973 Lah. 695 where one of the Honourable Judges of the said Court held that the bar of Rule 12 of Order XXII was in respect of execution proceedings only and not in respect of appeals arising out of the said execution. However, it is well‑known that an appeal is continuation of the same proceedings and, therefore, if the Bar is applicable to execution proceedings then the same should be also applicable to the appeals from the execution proceedings. In any case the present applicant will not be prejudiced if the only legal heir of respondent No.l namely, Noor Ahmed is not joined as a party. It is Noor Ahmed and his co‑heirs who would be affected by the eventual order passed in this Revision Application and if they do not want to be joined as party then the present applicant cannot be said to be guilty of not having made addition of a party. In, these circumstances, this application is dismissed. The matter may now be put up for regular hearing. H . B . T . /S‑1 / K Application dismissed.