Find a Lawyer

Civil Petitions Nos. 783 and 784 of 1985, decided on 12th November, 1985.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court Lahore, dated 9‑7‑1985 passed in Regular First Appeals Nos. 59 and 53 of 1985).

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXI, r.26‑‑Stay of execution‑‑Decree already executed and possession of property delivered to decree‑holder‑‑Application for suspension of impugned decree dismissed‑‑Order being unexceptionable, leave to appeal refused.

Anwar Sipra, Advocate Supreme Court assisted by Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocte‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Sh. Hamid Mukhtar, Advocate Supreme Court assisted by Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 12th November, 1985.

‑This order will dispose of the above‑mentioned two petitions for leave to appeal which arise out of a common order passed on an interlocutory application by the Lahore High Court, Lahore. The respondents in the two cases had brought pre‑emption suits in respect of two different suit properties. The suits were decreed on 23‑1‑1985. The judgments and decrees passed in the two suits were challenged in Regular First Appeals before the learned High Court where the petitioner made an application for the stay of the execution proceedings pending disposal of his appeals.

2. The learned High Court called for a report and was informed by the executing Court that the impugned decrees had already been executed and possession thereof delivered to the decree‑holder. In the circumstances, the High Court found that the question of suspension of the impugned decrees did not arise and the stay applications were dismissed.

3. In view of the facts, the order passed by the learned High Court is unexceptionable. The petitions have no merits and dismissed accordingly.

M .I . Petitions dismissed

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.