Find a Lawyer

JJ?NADEEM FAROOQ versus NEWZE LAND ELECTRONIC TRADING CO.

Sections 13 and 44A Pakistan Government, Law, Justice and Human Rights Division, Notification No. Section 208 (I) / 2007, dated 6 - 2007 United States Courts executed by a court order in the United Arab Emirates Classification Section A44A, CPC - Scope Arab United Arab Emirates was designated United Arab Emirates under section AA, for the purposes of the Federal Court of Appeal Section 44 of the CPC in the United Arab Emirates. Was the "Supreme Court". A. The CPC ec decree, in the present case, has been approved by the Court of First Instance in the United Arab Emirates, which, under the Sayed Decree of Section 44A, CPC, neither the Appellate Court nor a Supreme Court. Can be declared. Cannot be processed without obtaining the process of section 13, CPC - Appeal allowed pursuant to the observation that the respondents section 13, CPC, [pp. 98, 99] A, B, C and Terms According to the lawsuit was at liberty. D

P L D 2017 Supreme Court 95

Present: Ejaz Afzal Khan and Musbir Alam

JJ NADEEM FAROOQ and others—Appellants

versus

NEWZE LAND ELECTRONIC TRADING CO. LEE SHARJA—Respondent

Civil Appeal No.1793 of 2016 and C.M. Appeal No.206 of 2016, i decided on 30th November, 2016.

(On appeal against the judgment dated 31-5-2016 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench passed in FAO No.49 of 2015).

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)—

Ss. 13 & 44-A—Government of Pakistan, Law, Justice and Human Rights Division, Notification No.S.R.0. 208(I)/2007, dated 6-3-2007— Execution of decree passed by Court in United Arab Emirates— Hierarchy of Courts in United Arab Emirates for purposes of S.44-A, C.P.C.—Scope—United Arab Emirates had been declared as a reciprocating State in context of S.44-A, C.P.C.—Federal Court of Appeal in the United Arab Emirates was a “superior court” for the purposes of S.44-A, C.P.C.—Decree, in the present case, had been passed by the Court of First instance in United Arab Emirates which could neither be construed as Court of Appeal nor a superior court in terms of S.44-A, C.P.C.—Said decree, thus, could not be executed without having recourse to the process of S.13, C.P.C.—Appeal was allowed accordingly with the observation that respondent was at liberty to institute a suit in terms of S.13, C.P.C, [pp. 98, 99] A, B, C & D

Sh. Zamir Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court and Ahmed Nawaz Ch. Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellants.

Shaukat Rauf Siddique, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehmood A. Sh., Advocate-on-Record (absesnt) for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 30th November, 2016.

online advocate from Ambela lawyer