2002 PLP 747 (CLC)
AISHA BIBI — Decree-holder Versus NATIONAL LOGISTIC CELL, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Commander having its Head Office at Headquarter, National Logistic Transport Fleet New Haji Camp, Moulvi Tamizuddin Khan Road, Karachi and 2 others — Judgment-debtors
| Citation | 2002 PLP 747 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | AISHA BIBI — Decree-holder Versus NATIONAL LOGISTIC CELL, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Commander having its Head Office at Headquarter, National Logistic Transport Fleet New Haji Camp, Moulvi Tamizuddin Khan Road, Karachi and 2 others — Judgment-debtors |
| Primary Law | (b) Sindh Chief Court Rules (O.S.), (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 747 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Sindh Chief Court Rules (O.S.), (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 747 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 747 (CLC) (AISHA BIBI — Decree-holder Versus NATIONAL LOGISTIC CELL, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Commander having its Head Office at Headquarter, National Logistic Transport Fleet New Haji Camp, Moulvi Tamizuddin Khan Road, Karachi and 2 others — Judgment-debtors). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mr. Abdul Rauf has shown me the judgment in Suit No.694 of 1988 which was passed against the National Logistics Cell and Niaz Muhammad. However, a decree was not passed against defendant No.3, National Insurance Corporation. It was, however, open to the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 to proceed against the Insurance Company for recovery of the decretal amount. In the present execution as is well-settled that an executing Court cannot go behind the decree that this Court shall not proceed in execution against the insurance company. I am not agreeable with the view of Major (Retd.) Abdul Rauf, Advocate that the said decree ought to be executed against the insurance company. No doubt, colossal loss may have been caused by the said insurance company as N.L.C.,_ according to Major (Retd.) Abdul Rauf, Advocate has paid Rs.3,34,23,349.12. In fact, the N.L.C. ought to have claimed this amount from the insurance company. Admittedly, the privity of contract is between the insurance company and N.L.C. The Court passing the decree in the aforesaid suit has for reasons mentioned therein not decreed the suit against the defendant No.3. However, leave has been allowed to them to proceed against the insurance company. The application under section 176 of Sindh Chief Court Rules has been filed by the judgment- debtor claiming to be in accordance with the order passed. Rule 176 is categorical that, where a defendant claims against another defendant, he' is entitled to contribution or indemnity against any claim that may be made against him. I am of the view that in execution proceedings such cannot be allowed. However, N.L.C. is free to file appropriate and separate proceedings against the insurance company for recovery of the decretal amount from the said insurance company if allowed per law. Mr. Abdul Rauf states that he will consider filing appropriate proceedings against the National Insurance Company, as according to him colossal amount and premium has been paid to the insurance company, he seeks deferment from execution for three months. Such request is allowed. Upon the conclusion of three months, in the event the decretal amount is not paid, the various assets mentioned in the application for execution shall be attached, and. writ thereof shall be issued. The Nazir of this Court shall attach the property, and may proceed to sell the properties for payment to the decree-holder. The Nazir is also authorized to seek assistance from the police for complying the order of this Court.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 47
Executing Court cannot go behind the decree.
R. 176
Claim against another defendant-- Judgment-debtor objected to the execution proceedings on the ground that the Court should recover the decretal amount from the other defendant against whom the Trial Court had not passed any decree and who being an Insurance Company was liable to pay the damages which were decreed against the judgment-debtor
Judgment-debtor was free to file appropriate and separate proceedings against the insurance company for the recovery of the decretal amount if allowed in law
Such recovery could not be allowed in execution proceedings
Where the judgment -debtor had paid colossal amount and premium to the insurance company, High Court, in the interest of justice, deferred execution for three months on the request of judgment-debt6r.
Judgment & Decree
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
S. 47
Executing Court cannot go behind the decree. (b) Sindh Chief Court Rules (O.S.)
R. 176
Claim against another defendant-- Judgment-debtor objected to the execution proceedings on the ground that the Court should recover the decretal amount from the other defendant against whom the Trial Court had not passed any decree and who being an Insurance Company was liable to pay the damages which were decreed against the judgment-debtor
Judgment-debtor was free to file appropriate and separate proceedings against the insurance company for the recovery of the decretal amount if allowed in law
Such recovery could not be allowed in execution proceedings
Where the judgment -debtor had paid colossal amount and premium to the insurance company, High Court, in the interest of justice, deferred execution for three months on the request of judgment-debt6r. Nasir Maqsood along with Aleem Akbar Sheikh for the Decree- Holder. Abdul Rauf for the Judgment-Debtors Nos. l and
2. Mr. Abdul Rauf has shown me the judgment in Suit No.694 of 1988 which was passed against the National Logistics Cell and Niaz Muhammad. However, a decree was not passed against defendant No.3, National Insurance Corporation. It was, however, open to the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 to proceed against the Insurance Company for recovery of the decretal amount. In the present execution as is well-settled that an executing Court cannot go behind the decree that this Court shall not proceed in execution against the insurance company. I am not agreeable with the view of Major (Retd.) Abdul Rauf, Advocate that the said decree ought to be executed against the insurance company. No doubt, colossal loss may have been caused by the said insurance company as N.L.C.,_ according to Major (Retd.) Abdul Rauf, Advocate has paid Rs.3,34,23,349.12. In fact, the N.L.C. ought to have claimed this amount from the insurance company. Admittedly, the privity of contract is between the insurance company and N.L.C. The Court passing the decree in the aforesaid suit has for reasons mentioned therein not decreed the suit against the defendant No.3. However, leave has been allowed to them to proceed against the insurance company. The application under section 176 of Sindh Chief Court Rules has been filed by the judgment- debtor claiming to be in accordance with the order passed. Rule 176 is categorical that, where a defendant claims against another defendant, he' is entitled to contribution or indemnity against any claim that may be made against him. I am of the view that in execution proceedings such cannot be allowed. However, N.L.C. is free to file appropriate and separate proceedings against the insurance company for recovery of the decretal amount from the said insurance company if allowed per law. Mr. Abdul Rauf states that he will consider filing appropriate proceedings against the National Insurance Company, as according to him colossal amount and premium has been paid to the insurance company, he seeks deferment from execution for three months. Such request is allowed. Upon the conclusion of three months, in the event the decretal amount is not paid, the various assets mentioned in the application for execution shall be attached, and. writ thereof shall be issued. The Nazir of this Court shall attach the property, and may proceed to sell the properties for payment to the decree-holder. The Nazir is also authorized to seek assistance from the police for complying the order of this Court. Q.M.H./M.A.K./A-300/K Order accordingly.