2007 PLP 893 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD ARSHAD — Appellant Versus Ch. UMER MAHMOOD, ADVOCATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2007 PLP 893 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Maulvi Anwarul Haq and Muhammad Khalid Alvi, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ARSHAD — Appellant Versus Ch. UMER MAHMOOD, ADVOCATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 893 (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 2007 PLP 893 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Maulvi Anwarul Haq and Muhammad Khalid Alvi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 893 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD ARSHAD — Appellant Versus Ch. UMER MAHMOOD, ADVOCATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Tariq Zulfiqar Ahmad Chaudhry for Appellant.
- Javed Ahmad Khan for Respondent No. 1.
- Nemo for Respondent No.2.
- Ch. UMER MAHMOOD, ADVOCATE and another---Respondents
Headnotes / Summary
O.XXXVII, Rr.2 & 3
Suit was decreed in favour of plaintiff and defendant was directed to deposit decretal amount who deposited the same
Parties arrived at agreement during pendency of appeal which was disposed of in the terms that impugned judgment and decree, was set aside; leave to defend suit was granted subject to the condition that decretal amount deposited in the court would remain to be deposited by way of surety for payment of decretal amount; and said decretal amount would be invested by the Trial Court in profit bearing scheme of government to be disbursed along with profit to the party succeeding in the suit
Trial Court would take all steps to decide suit within specified period.
Judgment & Decree
This Regular First Appeal is against a money decree, passed by a learned Additional District Judge, Sahiwal in favour of respondent No.1 and against the appellant in a suit filed by respondent No.1 against the appellant as well as respondent No.2.
2. Vide order dated 1-2-2005 the appellant- was directed to deposit the decretal amount in the trial Court as a term of stay of execution. We are told that the said amount has been deposited with the learned trial Court.
3. Learned counsel for the parties after arguing the matter at some length have - arrived at an agreement. The R.F.A. is disposed of in the following terms: (i) The impugned judgment and decree dated 24-1-2004 of the learned Additional District Judge, Sahiwal is set aside. (ii) The leave to defend is granted to the appellant subject to the condition that the decretal amount deposited by him shall remain so deposited by way of surety for payment of the decretal amount. (iii) The said amount shall be invested by the learned trial Court in a Federal Government profit bearing scheme to be disbursed along with profit to the party succeeding in the suit.
4. Learned trial Court shall take all steps to decide the suit before the year 2006 is out. Records to be remitted to the learned trial Court by the Office immediately and parties to appear before the learned trial Court on 15-4-2006 and on the same day the appellant shall file written statement. H.B.T./M-732/L Order accordingly.