Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Civil Petition No. 75‑P of 1986, decided on 10th May, 1986.
(From the order of the Peshawar High Court, Circuit Bench at Abbottabad, dated 24‑2‑1986, passed in C.M. No. 18 of 1986 and C.M. 56 of 1986 in R . F . A . No. 3 of 1986).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XLI, R.5‑‑Stay of execution‑‑Decree for recovery of substantial amount from Government‑‑High Court rejecting application for vacation of stay‑‑Order impugned‑‑High Court's view that substantial loss was likely to cause to Government if execution of decree was not stayed and there was likely to be no difficulty in recovery of amount from it if appeal failed nor any security was required, upheld‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
M. Sardar Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mr. Qasim Imam, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioners.
Respondent No. 1 in person.
Date of hearing: 10th May, 1986.
Haji Banaris and others seek leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan against the order, dated 24‑2‑1986 of the Circuit Bench of the Peshawar High Court at Abbottabad in Civil Miscellaneous No. 18 of 1986 in R.F.A. No. 3 of 1986.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the Land Acquisition Collector, Abbottabad, acquired land measuring 1,242 Kanals 9 Marlas situate in Village Mirpur belonging to the petitioners and their co‑villagers as per Award No. 5, dated 3‑10‑1982. This was objected to under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act on behalf of the petitioners as well as other co‑owners of the village. The objection petition accompanied an application under Order 1, Rule 8, C.P.C. A reference was accordingly made to the Senior Civil Judge, Abbottabad as a designated Court. The Senior Civil Judge after giving notices to all the parties proceeded with the adjudication of the case and after recording necessary evidence enhanced the compensation of the land to the tune of rupees one lac per Kanal vide his judgment, dated 19‑10‑1985. Respondent No. 1 feeling aggrieved of the enhancement filed an appeal bearing No. R.F.A. 3 of 1986 in the High Court and along with the appeal an application was also filed for the stay of the execution. An interim stay was granted on 20‑1‑1986. The petitioners also filed an application for the vacation of the stay on 25‑1‑1986. Both the matters were heard by the learned Judges of the High Court and, vide order, dated 24‑2‑1986 confirmed the stay in favour of the respondent.
3. We have heard Mr. M. Sardar Khan for the petitioners. While granting stay, the learned Judges of the High Court observed that:‑
"As far the recover), of the excess amount is concerned we would stay the execution proceedings for a substantial loss is likely to cause to the judgment‑debtor/appellant if the execution of the impugned decree is not stayed. Further the judgment debtor/appellant is a Government and there is likely to be. faced no difficulty in the recovery of the amount from it in case of the failure of the appeal and the maintenance of the impugned decree. Further no such security. as mentioned in Rules 5 and 6 of the Order XLI shall be required from the Government for which a reference may be made to Order XXVII, Rule 8‑A, C.P.C."
4. We think the reasons given above are sound and the learned counsel for the petitioners was not able to make out any case in favour of his clients. This petition is thus dismissed.
M. I. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer