Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 789 of 1974, decided on 8th November 1974
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated the 27th September 1974, in Civil Miscellaneous No. 3015/C of 1974 in R. F. A. No. 62 of 1974).
‑O. XLI, rr. 5 & 6‑‑Execution proceedings‑Stay of High Court refusing to stay execution of money decree but directing decretal amount, if deposited in Court, not to be paid to decree holders unless sufficient security for reimbursement furnished High Court, held, exercised its discretion on sound principles governing execution of money decrees pending their challenge on appeal.
Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 8th November 1974.
This is petition for special leave to appeal from an order of a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court refusing to stay execution of decree passed against the petitioners herein pending disposal of their appeal. The decree was passed on 20th March, 1973 for payment of Rs. 1,57,000 as damages and compensation on account of accident, by rash and negligent act, in which Khawaja Muhammad Afzal, husband of respondent No. 1 and father of respondents 2 to 5 was killed. Khawaja Muhammad Afzal at the time he met his death by accident was posted as Executive Engineer (Irrigation) Kalabagh Division, District Mianwali.
High Court has held that there is "no case for stay" and "thus depriving the decree‑holders of the fruit of the decree". It has, however, been directed that the decretal amount, if deposited in Court, shall not be paid to the decree‑holders, unless sufficient security for re‑imbursement is furnished by them.
We find that High Court has exercised its discretion on sound principles of law governing execution of money decrees pending their challenge on anneal. Decree‑holders lost their bread‑winner long ago, on 31st January, 1968, and it is only proper that they should reap fruits of the decree passed in their favour, rather than just have a "paper‑decree" to console themselves for the time‑being. The interest of petitioners have also been adequately safe‑guarded in the eventuality of their success in appeal in the High Court.
There is, therefore, no merit in this petition. It is dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer