2000 PLP 801 (MLD)
Syed SHAFFAT HUSSAIN ‑‑‑Appellant Versus KAMRAN KHOKHAR‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2000 PLP 801 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Syed Najam‑ul‑Hassan Kazmi, J |
| Parties | Syed SHAFFAT HUSSAIN ‑‑‑Appellant Versus KAMRAN KHOKHAR‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 PLP 801 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2000 PLP 801 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Syed Najam‑ul‑Hassan Kazmi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 PLP 801 (MLD) (Syed SHAFFAT HUSSAIN ‑‑‑Appellant Versus KAMRAN KHOKHAR‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.51 & O.XXI, Rr.37, 40‑‑‑Execution of decree‑‑‑Detention of judgment debtor‑‑‑Judgment‑debtor was sent to prison with the condition that he should remain in prison unless decretal amount was paid‑‑‑Validity‑‑ Judgment‑debtor could not have been sent to prison unless proved that he had means to pay decretal amount and that he had refused to pay amount or that he was leaving territorial limits of Court or would defeat decree by transferring property during pendency of suit‑‑‑Non‑speaking order sending judgment‑debtor to prison, passed mechanically without complying with provisions of S.51, C.P.C. was suspended, in circumstances. M. Ajmal Khan, Advocate.
Judgment & Decree
First Appeal from Order No.4 of 2000, decided on 13th January, 2000. ‑‑‑‑S.51 & O.XXI, Rr.37, 40‑‑‑Execution of decree‑‑‑Detention of judgment debtor‑‑‑Judgment‑debtor was sent to prison with the condition that he should remain in prison unless decretal amount was paid‑‑‑Validity‑‑ Judgment‑debtor could not have been sent to prison unless proved that he had means to pay decretal amount and that he had refused to pay amount or that he was leaving territorial limits of Court or would defeat decree by transferring property during pendency of suit‑‑‑Non‑speaking order sending judgment‑debtor to prison, passed mechanically without complying with provisions of S.51, C.P.C. was suspended, in circumstances. M. Ajmal Khan, Advocate. ORDER . Main allegation of the petitioner is that without complying with the prerequisites of section 51 of C.P.C. and Order 21, Rules 37 and 40 of C.P.C., the learned Additional District Judge proceeded to send the petitioner in prison, with the condition that he should remain there unless the decretal amount is paid. It is alleged that the petitioner could not have been sent to prison unless it is proved that he had the means to pay the decretal amount and refused to pay the amount or that, he was leaving the territorial limits of Court or he will intend to defeat decree, transferred property during the pendency of the suit. It is added that no inquiry was conducted nor a speaking order was passed and in a mechanical manner the petitioner was directed to be lodged in the prison. Prima facie there appears to be substance in the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. Impugned order does not appear to be speaking one nor appears to have been passed after complying with the provisions of section 51 of C.P.C. In this view of the matter the impugned order is suspended and it is directed that subject to furnishing of third person simple security for appearance of petitioner before learned Additional District Judge, the petitioner should be released from prison. Main petition be listed for hearing on 3‑2‑2000. Order accordingly.