2005 PLP 1480 (CLD)
Messrs Haji MUHAMMAD BOOTA through Sole Proprietor and 3 others — Appellants Versus ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LIMITED through Manager — Respondent
| Citation | 2005 PLP 1480 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Messrs Haji MUHAMMAD BOOTA through Sole Proprietor and 3 others — Appellants Versus ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LIMITED through Manager — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 1480 (CLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP 1480 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 1480 (CLD) (Messrs Haji MUHAMMAD BOOTA through Sole Proprietor and 3 others — Appellants Versus ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LIMITED through Manager — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Respondent-Bank.
Headnotes / Summary
S.47
Questions to be determined by Court executing decree
Scope
Executing Court had power to decide all questions between parties relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of decree.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, J.
Seemingly aggrieved from order dated 22-4-2004, whereby appellant's application seeking leave to defend the suit, was dismissed and judgment and decree dated 25-5-2004 for the recovery of Rs.24,62,669 together with costs and cost of funds passed by the Judge Banking Court, the appellants, on 10-7-2004, filed the present appeal before this Court. During the pendency of the appeal, Haji Rashid Mehmood filed the application (C.M. No.3-C of 2004), with the prayer that he may be impleaded as respondent No.2 in the appeal.
2. After arguing the matter at some length, both the learned counsel concede that the decretal amount has been deposited with the respondent-Bank and the decree, under appeal, has been satisfied. Admittedly, the respondent-Bank has recovered the decretal amount and the decree, under appeal,' stood satisfied, thus, the said decree has become in-executable. To our mind, the present appeal, which proceeds against inexecutable decree, cannot further progress, as no live issues are left to be decided by this Court and the appeal has become infructuous. Needless to add that the executing Court, under section 47, C.P.C. is empowered to decide all questions between the parties and relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree.
3. In the above perspective, the present appeal stands dismissed having become infructuous, with no order as to costs. C.M. No.3-C of 2004 C.M. No.4-C of 2004 As the appeal has been dismissed, therefore, these applications have also become infructuous, hence disposed of accordingly. S.A.K./H-67/L Appeal dismissed.