CITIZENS INVESTMENT CO. versus ASKARI LEASING LTD.
Section 22 and 23 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), section 64, O XXI, R 58 and O XXXVIII, R 11 Appellant's title to the appellant's claim that the property in his name has been legally transferred and that he Can't do Be auctioned off during the execution. O XXI, R 58, the order approving the post-attachment attachment was approved under CPC and was not only legally effective but also binding and the appellant failed to identify any defective error in the proceedings, as such There was nothing illegal. For the same reason, the approval of two simultaneous orders at the same time was not illegal. In the context of the provisions of O. XXXVIII, R 11, there was no illegality in the CPC also in the process of sale on behalf of the appellant on 11th 2003. Was brought, and the attached order was approved. The execution was, in the first instance, by the court, therefore, such a sale was legally ineffective under such section 64 CP, CPC, as any transaction occurring after the approval of the attachment order was ipso facto I was wrong. n The question was legally invalid and ineffective because it violated the times contained in Section 23 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finance) Ordinance 2001, the appeal was dismissed in the circumstances.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2009
