Step 1 of 8
Welcome!
Let's learn how to use the search features effectively.
Step 1 of 7
Welcome!
Let's learn how to use the search features effectively.
Latest Judgments (All Jurisdictions within Pakistan)
GULZAR HUSSAIN and otherss vs ABDUR RASOOL and others
Summary: Summary pending
AZHAR BASHIR VS SADIA SHAFIQUE CIVIL APPEAL NO OF SADIA SHAFIQUE VS AZHAR BASHIR
Summary: Summary pending.
GHULAM QADIR and another vs MUHAMMAD ALI and others
Summary: Summary pending
MST MOMNA MEHMOOD VS VICE CHANCELLOR UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES LAHORE
Summary: Summary pending.
Mian Muhammad Ajmal VS Syed Nazar Hussain Shah Bukhari etc
Summary: Background:
The case revolves around the execution of a consent decree based on a compromise agreement involving (Petitioner) and the legal heirs of (Respondents). The parties had initially entered into an agreement to sell a property located at Plot No.1-Z, Sea Sun Plaza, Markaz F-10, Islamabad. Subsequently, a consent decree was issued on October 21, 2003, by the Civil Court, which directed that the respondents (Plaintiffs) be substituted as co-allottee/co-sharer of the property. The petitioner later filed an objection to the decree's execution, arguing that additional terms from the original compromise agreement should be included.
-----Issues:
1- Scope of Execution of Decree: Whether the Executing Court can consider terms from the original compromise agreement not included in the final decree.
-----2- Revisional Jurisdiction: Whether the High Court, in exercising revisional powers under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), can amend the decree to reflect the complete terms of the compromise.
-----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:
The High Court dismissed the petitioner’s revision petition, upholding the concurrent findings of the lower courts. It ruled that the Executing Court could not consider terms not explicitly included in the decree, and the High Court could not revise it under Section 115 of the CPC.
---Execution and Scope of the Decree: The Court highlighted that under Section 47 of the CPC, the Executing Court's role is limited to enforcing the decree as written. Since the decree did not include additional terms from the compromise agreement, the Executing Court had no authority to modify or interpret the decree to incorporate these.
---Revisional Jurisdiction: The Court reaffirmed that revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 is limited to correcting jurisdictional errors and does not allow revisiting facts or introducing new terms not contained in the decree.
Petitioner's Right to Appeal: The petitioner had not appealed the original decree and instead sought modification during execution proceedings, which was procedurally incorrect.
The High Court dismissed the revision petition, ruling that the decree must be executed as is, without additions from the compromise agreement.
-----Citations/Precedents:
Ghulam Muhammad vs. Sultan Mahmud [PLD 1963 SC 265]: Executing Court cannot look beyond the decree.
Kanwal Nain vs. Fateh Khan [PLD 1983 SC 53]: Limitations on High Court’s revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the CPC.
COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE ZONEI REGIONAL TAX OFFICE QUETTA vs Messrs BALOCHISTAN ONYX DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD
Summary: Summary pending
FIDA HUSSAIN OTHERSS VS DORCOLLECTOR DI KHAN
Summary: Summary pending.
KAZIM ALI VS LIAQUAT ALI
Summary: Summary pending.
STATE THROUGH ADVOCATE GENERAL SINDH VS ELAHI BUX
Summary: Summary pending.
MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE VS NASIR MEHMOOD
Summary: Summary pending.