Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD SHAFI versus MAJID MEHMOOD

The provisions of Sections 4, 15, 21 and 27 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), O XX, R 14 and O XXI, R 10, for the execution of the injunction prohibited sale price were canceled in favor of the suit and according to the terms The value of the sale, which was set by the court, was to be submitted by the plaintiff by 7 to 1977, failing which the plaintiff was to be dismissed in the case which led to the dismissal of the plaintiff, who had 7 of 1977. Instead of submitting the sale amount on 20 10 on 1977, he claimed that the money was deposited in the bank on 797 1977, but he inadvertently left no copy of the challan to the bank, saying Bank The money is credited to the account separately, even if the plaintiff's argument is accepted, even if the deposit cannot be considered as payment. In court because it was said that the money was deposited in a separate account and not in the court account. The payment challan itself showed that the court account was submitted only on 20 10 197 1977 and, according to the law, was the date to be treated. On the day the payment was made to the plaintiff of the court who did not comply with the terms of the decree, the case was dismissed. The courts did not maintain that, by law, they had to be credited to the account. Made a mistake in the law by treating deposits in a separate bank account. The court held that by detecting non-compliance with the law set forth in OX, R 14, CPC, defective orders were set aside and the objection filed by the defendant was allowed and filed by the plaintiff. The execution was dismissed lawer from fb area from Chunian lawyer