2002 PLP 313 (CLD)
through Attorney‑‑‑Appellant Versus SAJID MAHMOOD and 5 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2002 PLP 313 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Jawwad S. Khawaja and Muhammad Sair Ali, JJ |
| Parties | through Attorney‑‑‑Appellant Versus SAJID MAHMOOD and 5 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)‑‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 313 (CLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)‑‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 313 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Jawwad S. Khawaja and Muhammad Sair Ali, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 313 (CLD) (through Attorney‑‑‑Appellant Versus SAJID MAHMOOD and 5 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Afzal Sandhu for Appellant.
- Zahid Malik for Respondent No. 1.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 7‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXI- Rr.58, 59 & 62‑‑ Execution of decree‑‑‑Objection to attachment of property‑‑ Respondent claimed to be bona fide purchaser for value of attached property without notice of any encumbrance thereon and in possession thereof since 1996, when agreement to sell was executed in his favour by judgment‑debtor‑‑‑Executing Court accepted such agreement at its face value without determining the allegation of decree‑holder Bank that such agreement was collusive and there was no conveyance of title in favour of the respondent ‑‑Validity‑‑‑Provisions of O.XXI, R.62, C.P.C., mandated an inquiry in order to determine such matter of factual contention‑‑ Appellate Court accepted the appeal, set aside the impugned order and remanded the case to Executing Court for decision afresh along the lines indicated.
Judgment & Decree
The contentions of learned counsel for the appellant have already been noted in the order dated 22‑10‑2001 and, therefore, need not be repeated.
2. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 states that the said respondent, namely, Sajid Mahmood is a bona fide purchaser for value, of House No.262/2 Phase‑II, Defence Housing Authority Lahore. He has also contended that he is in possession of the said property since 1996 when an agreement to sell was executed in his favour by Javed Mahmood respondent No. 2 who is a judgment‑debtor.
3. We have gone through the impugned order dated 20‑9‑2001 and note that the learned Executing Court has proceeded to accept the agreement of sale at face value without making a determination in respect of the allegation of collusion which had been made by the decree‑holder Bank.
4. We have also gone through rules 58, 59 and 62 of Order XXI, C.P.C. The contention of the decree‑holder Bank that there was, in fact, no‑conveyance of title in favour of Sajid Mahmood and that the agreement dated 20‑6‑1996 was, in fact, collusive, could only have been determined by means of a proper inquiry by the Executing Court. Such inquiry requires the Executing Court to take evidence to determine the factual assertion of collusion made by the appellant and equally to examine the factual assertion made by Sajid Mahmood respondent No. l that he was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of any encumbrance on the above noted property.
5. The provisions of Order XHI, rule 62, C.P.C. mandate an inquiry in order to determine precisely such matter of factual contention as has arisen in the present case between the decree‑holder Bank and the objector Sajid Mahmood respondent No.
1. In this view of the matter, we would allow this appeal and set aside the order dated 20‑9‑2001. Order accordingly. As a consequence, we remand this matter to the learned Executing Court for decision afresh along the lines indicated above.
6. Since both parties are represented before us, we direct them to appear before the Executing Court on 10‑12‑2001. S.A.K./U‑17/L Case remanded.