1987 PLP 1905 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ILYAS and 4 others — Petitioners Versus Mst. SARDAR BEGUM (Deceased), and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 1905 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ILYAS and 4 others — Petitioners Versus Mst. SARDAR BEGUM (Deceased), and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 1905 (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 1905 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 1905 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ILYAS and 4 others — Petitioners Versus Mst. SARDAR BEGUM (Deceased), and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S.M. Zamir Zaidi, Advocate Supreme Court with Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Shahzad Jahangir, Advocate Supreme Court with M.A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 17th March, 1984.
Headnotes / Summary
O.XLI, R.5--Stay--Vacation of--Condition precedent not fulfilled- Supreme Court granting stay of execution of impugned judgment subject to petitioner's paying monthly compensation for use and occupation of disputed property during pendency of proceedings--Petitioners failing to fulfil condition precedent--Interim stay vacated. ORDER
Judgment & Decree
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.--Muhammad Akram and others (respondents) have applied for the vacation of order of this Court dated 6-11-1983, suspending the execution of the impugned judgment subject to petitioners (in the main application) depositing Rs.500 per month with the Assistant Registrar of this Court as compensation for use and occupation of the property in dispute during the pendency of the matter in this Court.
2. It has been urged by the applicants/respondents counsel that Muhammad Ilyas, etc. (petitioners in the main petition) have failed to fulfil the condition precedent and has not deposited the amount as required by this Court. This has not been denied. The interim order in question is, therefore, vacated. M.I./M-148/S Interim stay vacated.