Find a Lawyer

TAHIR OMER INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD. versus SIDDIQUI SONS SYNDICATE

A. XXXVIII, R 5 Before the Declaration of Decision The Affiliation of the Property The Plaintiff filed an application under O XXXVIII, R 5 CPC - Because of the attachment to the property before the decision that the defendant had a buyer Who was ready to buy the property and have the property attached because there was no other property / property to recover as the unlawful sum of the accused, if the decision was finally granted in their favor. So the defendants requested and denied that they had any intention or they were talking to a buyer. Settlement of a property that intends to be interrupted and / or delay the execution of a decree that may be granted against them. Validation Neither this buyer's name was shown in the request nor any further proof was entered. O To overcome such concerns by the claimant provisions of XXXVIII, R 5 of CPC should exercise prudence as a punishment in nature. H caution and as a matter not, the High Court rejected the application in the circumstances. Kurdish \ r \ n \ r \ n

Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2010

• COMMISSIONER (LEGAL DIVISION), LARGE TAXPAYERS UNIT, KARACHI v. PARACHA TEXTILE MILLS LTD., KARACHI 2010 PTD 1016
• MUHAMMAD SAEED v. MUHAMMAD YOUSUF 2010 CLC 1021
• PERAC RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION (PRDF), KARACHI v. NATIONAL REFINERY LIMITED 2010 YLR 1024
• TAHIR AHMED ZAHID v. State 2010 MLD 1027
• MUHAMMAD NAEEM v. K.A. BASHIR 2010 CLC 1039
• M. NAEEM v. THE STATE through Prosecutor-General, Province of Sindh 2010 PCrLJ 1039
• SULEMAN v. State 2010 MLD 1040
• RELIANCE CONSULTANCY AND ENGINEERING WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN 2010 CLC 1046

All Karachi High Court Sindh judgments of 2010 →

jobs for fresh advocates from Naseerabad lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes