1999 PLP 1567 (CLC)
UNITED DISTRIBUTORS (PVT.) LTD. ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MADINA TRADERS‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1999 PLP 1567 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Sh. Lutfur Rehman, J |
| Parties | UNITED DISTRIBUTORS (PVT.) LTD. ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MADINA TRADERS‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP 1567 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1999 PLP 1567 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Sh. Lutfur Rehman, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999 PLP 1567 (CLC) (UNITED DISTRIBUTORS (PVT.) LTD. ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MADINA TRADERS‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian M. Saeed for Petitioner.
- Ozair Chughtai for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 4th February, 1998.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑O. XXI, R.40(4), Ss.55 & 115‑‑‑Judgment‑debtor was released on furnishing security bond on grounds of ill‑health and having become destitute‑‑‑Contention was that judgment‑debtor should be detained for a period of one year as provided by S.55, C.P.C.‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑One year simple imprisonment being the maximum period under S.55, C.P.C., Executing Court had discretion to fix detention of judgment‑debtor under O.XXI, R.40(4), C.P.C.‑‑‑Executing petition being still pending, decree‑holder could seek remedy before Executing Court‑‑‑No illegality or material irregularity having been committed in the impugned order, petition was dismissed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Mian M. Saeed for Petitioner. Ozair Chughtai for Respondent. Date of hearing: 4th February, 1998. Through this revision petition Messrs United Distributors Pakistan Ltd. challenged the legality of order, dated 10‑4‑1997 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Bahawalpur, whereby he released the judgment‑debtor.
2. The brief facts giving rise to this revision petition are that a money decree was passed by the High Court of Sindh at Karachi in Civil Suit No.373 of 1991 in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent. An Execution Petition No. Nil of 1995 was filed and the decree alongwith certificate of non- satisfaction of decree was transferred to the District Judge, Bahawalpur, under section 39, C.P.C. Consequently, an execution application was filed in the Court of District Judge, Bahawalpur and finally Abdul Majeed Ghala, the sole proprietor of Madina Traders (judgment‑debtor) was arrested and detained in the prison. An application was moved by the said judgment‑debtor for his release on the ground of his ill‑health and having become destitute. It was also alleged that the petitioner had no movable or immovable property to satisfy the decree. The application was finally accepted through the impugned order, dated 10‑4‑1997 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Bahawalpur, who was executing the decree in question. The petitioner was ordered to be released on the condition of filing a surety bond to the tune of Rs.6,00,000.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as a huge amount W' was still to be paid by the judgment‑debtor, he should not have been released before prescribed period of one year ,
4. There is no force in this contention for the simple reason that the period of one year prescribed in section
55. C.P.C. is the maximum period for detention in prison to suffer simple imprisonment, but it is within the discretion of the Executing Court to fix the period of detention. Under sub‑rule (4) of Rule 40 of Order XXI, C.P.C. a judgment‑debtor released under the said rule can be re‑arrested. The respondent has been released on furnishing surety bond to the effect that he shall neither abscond nor leave the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Executing Court untill the payment of the decretal amount. The execution petition is still pending and the decree‑holder can seek the remedy in accordance with law before the Executing Court. There is absolutely no illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order. Hence, no justification for interference in the same in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. In view of the above, the revision petition is dismissed having no merits. There will be no order as to costs. C.M.S./M.A.K./U‑25/L Petition dismissed.