1987 PLP 1068 (SCMR)
Messrs ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD.‑‑Petitioner Versus Messrs SUPER ELECTRIC INDUSTRIES LTD. Respondent
| Citation | 1987 PLP 1068 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ |
| Parties | Messrs ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD.‑‑Petitioner Versus Messrs SUPER ELECTRIC INDUSTRIES LTD. Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 1068 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 1068 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 1068 (SCMR) (Messrs ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD.‑‑Petitioner Versus Messrs SUPER ELECTRIC INDUSTRIES LTD. Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Aslam Chattha, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Advocate‑General with S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 11th April, 1987.
- Rana Muhammad Sarwar Advocate Supreme Court, Khalil Ramdey,
- 4. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Advocate‑General in support of the petition were of no assistance to us, but since a legal question of general importance has been raised, we grant leave in the matter. Security Rs.2,000. Since the point involved is a short one, an early date be fixed for hearing of the appeal on the present record with permission to the parties to file additional documents if any.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the order of the Lahore High Court, dated 27‑10‑1986, passed in Civil Miscellaneous No. 69‑C of 1986 in R.F.A. No. 63 of 1985). ‑‑‑O. XXXIX, R. 4‑A & O. XLI, R. 5‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Art. 185(3)‑‑Suit for recovery of money‑‑Decreed by High Court in its original jurisdiction‑‑On appeal by respondent, High Court suspended execution of decree subject to furnishing security of decretal amount
Petitioner's application for vacation of order of suspension on ground that staying proceedings could ensure only for six months, dismissed Order impugned‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider whether impugned order of High Court would be governed by provision of O.XLI, R.5 or O.XXXIX, R. 4‑A, C.P.C. Rana Muhammad Sarwar Advocate Supreme Court, Khalil Ramdey,
Judgment & Decree
ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J.‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court, dated 27‑10‑1986.
2. The brief facts are that the petitioner/Bank filed suit for recovery of a certain amount against the respondent before the Banking Judge of the Lahore High Court on its original jurisdiction. The suit was contested but ultimately a decree for the recovery of a sum of Rs.20,12,693.90 together with interest at the rate of 14% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till the realization of the decretal amount was passed on 7th November, 1984. The respondent filed a Regular First Appeal in the Lahore High Court from the judgment and decree dated 7‑11‑1984. Along with the appeal, the respondent also filed an application under Order XLI, rule 5 C.P.C. for the suspension of the impugned decree. On 2‑7‑1985, the learned Division Bench issued notice to the petitioner/ Bank and ordered the suspension of the execution of the decree subject to the furnishing of the security in respect of the decretal amount to the satisfaction of the executing Court. The case then came up before the Court on 6‑10‑1985 and on that date the order dated 2‑7‑1985 was confirmed. The petitioner then approached the High Court with a civil miscellaneous application for the vacation of the order of suspension. This application was dismissed on 27‑10‑1986, hence the present petition.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. While dealing with the question of grant of stay, the learned Judges have observed: "The argument of the learned counsel for the respondent, based on the provisions of Order XXXIX, rule 4‑A of the Code of Civil Procedure, that the order of this Court staying proceedings could enure only for six months is simply fallacious because the order was passed by this Court in appeal under Order XLI, rule 5 of the Code and not in a suit under Order XXXIX, rule 4‑A. Order XLI, rule 5, which applies to appellate jurisdiction, does not restrict the span of the validity of the stay order." The only question which requires consideration in this case is whether the impugned order of the High Court would be governed by the provision of Order XLI, rule 5 or Order XXXIX, Rule 4‑A, C.P.C.I
4. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Advocate‑General in support of the petition were of no assistance to us, but since a legal question of general importance has been raised, we grant leave in the matter. Security Rs.2,
000. Since the point involved is a short one, an early date be fixed for hearing of the appeal on the present record with permission to the parties to file additional documents if any. M.I./A‑32/S Leave granted