1990 PLP 1106 (SCMR)
PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Collector, Bahawalpur‑‑‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM RASOOL and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1990 PLP 1106 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Collector, Bahawalpur‑‑‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM RASOOL and others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP 1106 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP 1106 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP 1106 (SCMR) (PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Collector, Bahawalpur‑‑‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM RASOOL and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Tanvir Ahmad Khan, Assistant Advocate‑General Punjab with S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in the both Petitions).
- Nemo for Respondents (in C.P. No. 9 of 1984).
- M. Aftab Iqbal, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents (in C.P. 10 of 1984).
- Date of hearing: 4th September, 1988.
- 2. The contention which the learned Additional Advocate‑General wishes to raise in support of these petitions relates to the propriety of the decrees passed in favour of the respondents. It is well‑settled that an executing Court cannot go behind the decree. It is no longer disputed that the Civil Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the suits of the respondents. We would, therefore, dismiss these petitions.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgments/orders dated 7‑11‑1983 and 1‑11‑1983 of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench in C.Rs Nos. 348 of 1983/BWP and 349‑D of 1983/BWP, respectively). (a) Decree‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑ Executing Court cannot go behind the decree. (b) Civil service‑‑ ‑‑‑‑ Suit by civil servants for declaration that their salaries had been fixed incorrectly; that they were entitled to re-fixation of their pays in the proper scales and arrears of salary‑‑‑Civil Court has, the jurisdiction to entertain such suit.
Judgment & Decree
(b) Civil service‑‑ ‑‑‑‑ Suit by civil servants for declaration that their salaries had been fixed incorrectly; that they were entitled to re-fixation of their pays in the proper scales and arrears of salary‑‑‑Civil Court has, the jurisdiction to entertain such suit. Tanvir Ahmad Khan, Assistant Advocate‑General Punjab with S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in the both Petitions). Nemo for Respondents (in C.P. No. 9 of 1984). M. Aftab Iqbal, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents (in C.P. 10 of 1984). Date of hearing: 4th September, 1988. SAAD SAOOD JAIL, J.‑‑‑The respondents in these two petitions fled two separate civil suits for declarations that their pays had been fixed incorrectly; that they were entitled to re-fixation of their pays in the proper scales and arrears of salary. The suits were decreed by the Senior Civil Judge at Bahawalpur. The Provincial Government did not care to file appeals against the judgments and decrees of the trial Court. However, during the course of execution proceedings an objection was raised that the respondents were not entitled to the scales to which they had been held entitled under the decrees. The objection was rejected by the executing Court and the appeal of the Provincial Government before the Additional District Judge and revision before the High Court failed. It now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. The contention which the learned Additional Advocate‑General wishes to raise in support of these petitions relates to the propriety of the decrees passed in favour of the respondents. It is well‑settled that an executing Court cannot go behind the decree. It is no longer disputed that the Civil Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the suits of the respondents. We would, therefore, dismiss these petitions. M.BA./P‑134/S Petition dismissed.