ZAHID MAHMOOD versus ABDUL HAMEED ALIAS GHULAM MUHAMMAD
Section 8 Civil Code of Conduct (V8 1908), O XX, R 8 and O XXI, R 35 suit decided for a division trial and the defendant challenged the Supreme Court, the court issued a property warrant. What was appealed was challenged but the appeal was dismissed. The plaintiff claimed that the original decree was improper and the issuance of a warrant of possession was without jurisdiction. Moreover, the stamps on the decree were not retained that the matters contained in the petitioner were resolved by the Supreme Court and the request for review was malicious and merely a lapse of delay in execution. Was. The plaintiff was instructed to distribute the said land to the applicants and the other defendants in a share that would be settled by the Revenue Authorities within thirty days of payment of compensation but the defendants failed to pay the High Court. Affirmed the order of the imposing court as the defendant failed to pay within the stipulated time, the plaintiff was entitled to a warrant of possession, saying the order / matter was successfully challenged before the Supreme Court, thus the defendant's possession The question of the warrant warrant guarantee was not resolved not once but twice, therefore, the unsuccessful challenge The same argument had been repeatedly upheld till the Supreme Court, after c., That the warrant of acquittal of the accused was properly issued by the court to frustrate the execution, as the original order under it The deadline was reached. Issuing warrant of affidavit by the High Court twice, the execution court acted in accordance with the judgment and decree and its jurisdiction.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010
