2008 PLP 1738 (YLR)
Mian NASIM AKHTAR — Appellant Versus Mst. SHAMIM JAHAN BEGUM — Respondent
| Citation | 2008 PLP 1738 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Mian Saqib Nisar, J |
| Parties | Mian NASIM AKHTAR — Appellant Versus Mst. SHAMIM JAHAN BEGUM — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 1738 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 1738 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Mian Saqib Nisar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 1738 (YLR) (Mian NASIM AKHTAR — Appellant Versus Mst. SHAMIM JAHAN BEGUM — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ----O.XLIII, R.1---Appeal against order---Counsel for respondent had stated that he would have no objection if impugned order was set aside, but for securing the rights of respondent, he submitted that properties in question should not be allowed to be alienated in any manner during pendency of suit---Counsel for appellant accepting the submission of counsel for respondent, had stated that appellant would not alienate the suit properties---Court, in order to ensure the ends of justice, directed that appellant would provide the details of the profits/rental etc. which he had been deriving from the properties in question to the Trial Court within specified period---Order accordingly.
Headnotes / Summary
M. Iqbal for the Appellant. Muhammad Atif Amin for the Respondent. Munawar Iqbal Duggal on behalf of Ashtar Ausaf Ali for the Respondent.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.
Mr. Muhammad Atif Amin, learned counsel for the respondent, on instructions of his client, states that he has no objection if the impugned order is set aside but for securing the rights of the respondent/plaintiff, it is submitted that the properties in question, the list whereof has been filed by the appellant, should not be allowed to be alienated in any manner whatsoever, during the pendency of the suit. This is acceptable to the learned counsel for the appellant, who states that the appellant shall not alienate the suit properties. Besides the above, this Court is also of the view that in order to ensure the ends of justice, the appellant, if has not so far provided, shall provide the details of the profits/rental etc., which he had been deriving from the properties in question to the learned trial Court within a period of two months. The appellant shall also file a security with the Court below that in case the respondent ultimately is found to be entitled to any share in the rental/profits, that shall be paid to her, subject to the decision of the Court in this behalf. The learned trial Court is also directed to decide this case by the end of the year 2007. Accordingly, this appeal stand disposed of. H.B.T./N-15/L Order accordingly.