👋 Welcome, visitor from Columbus, US!

49/2009 Execution M/S.SAUDI ARABIAN AIR LINES (Decree Holder) V/S M/S.INT.MARKETING (Judgment Debtor)

Sindh High CourtCivil Law2014

Bench: Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)

Share on WhatsApp

49/2009 Execution M/S.SAUDI ARABIAN AIR LINES (Decree Holder) V/S M/S.INT.MARKETING (Judgment Debtor) Sindh High Court

Bench: Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author) Order Date: 02-SEP-14

"Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. XXI, Rr. 22 & 66---Execution petition---Sale of attached property---Objections---Notice to Judgment-debtor to settle terms of sale---Necessity---Deposit of decretal amount, application for---Constructive res judicata, principle of---Applicability---Contention of judgment-debtor was that neither notice for sale proclamation nor for settling terms of sale were issued---Validity---No notice under O.XXI, R.66, C.P.C. was issued to the judgment-debtor nor such application had been preferred---Decree-holder was bound to apply for a notice under O.XXI, R.66, C.P.C. so that judgment debtor had an opportunity of raising objection to the sale, if any, or assist in settling terms to sale--- Judgment-debtor was entitled for notice to settle terms of sale proclamation---Judgment-debtor would lose right to object the execution petition after his service through public notice---Service of earlier notice would not take away the right of judgment-debtor to claim notice when property was put to auction---Sale could not be considered to be a valid sale in absence of notice under O.XXI, R.66, C.P.C.---When the judgment-debtor, in response to the notice, failed to appear, he was precluded by the rule of constructive res judicata from raising such objection at a later time and not by virtue of notice under O.XXI, R.66, C.P.C.---Non-compliance to the provisions of O.XXI, R.66, C.P.C. might vitiate the sale on account of material irregularity---Application for deposit of decretal amount was accepted in circumstances."

Full judgment text for this case is not yet available on Pakistan Law Reports. Check the official Sindh High Court case law portal for the complete order.
This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error, let us know.

Related judgments

Suit for Damages on Malicious Prosecution can be filed within one year

PLJ 2014 · Sindh High Court · 2014

Party can be added at any stage of the Trial

Sindh High Court · 2014

Permission to produce documents under order 13 rule 2

PLJ 2013 · Sindh High Court · 2013

Right to sue in case of Benamidar has six years limitation

PLJ 2010 Karachi 132 · Sindh High Court · 2010

There is difference between Power of Attorney and Will

PLJ 2008 Karachi 121 · Sindh High Court · 2008