1989 CLC 1688

ZIAUDDIN KHAN Versus MUHAMMAD AZIM

Citation1989 CLC 1688

CourtSindh High Court

Case No.Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.545 of 1988 (In High Court Appeal No.2 of 1988)

Date1988-08-16

ResultApplication dismissed

ORDER

1. SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.‑ ‑Mr. Habibur Rehman, Advocate is present in the Court and states that he is no more appearing for the appellant who has taken away the brief from him. It is requested by the learned counsel that his name should not appear in the cause list in future so far this case is concerned. Order accordingly.

2. This appeal was finally disposed of by the judgment of Division Bench passed on 17th February, 1988 whereby the appeal has been dismissed maintaining the judgment and decree, passed by the learned Single Judge with modification. According to the judgment in appeal, appellant had undertaken before the Court to pay the decretal amount within six weeks and had also given undertaking not to dispose of his Bungalow which had been attached till the payment of decretal amount.

3. Now an application has been filed by the appellant under section 151, C.P.C. which is dated 20‑3‑1988 in which the prayer is that six weeks grace period as allowed by the appellate Court be counted from the date of issue of certified copy of judgment which was passed on 17‑2‑1988. Reason given in application is that compliance could not be made by the appellant of the direction contained in the judgment for the reason that efforts were made to obtain certified copy of the order which was obtained with considerable delay and lawyers consulted by the appellant also expressed their inability to take further steps without first seeing certified copy of the judgment. This explanation is unsatisfactory for the reason that the judgment appears to have been dictated in the open Court on 17‑2‑1988 as is admitted by Mr. Habibur Rehman and Mr. Dastgir who were appearing for the parties. Undertaking given by the appellant is also crystal clear that decretal amount would be paid within a period of six weeks till then Bungalow of appellant would remain attached. We are not satisfied with the explanation which is unacceptable and there is no merit in this application which is hereby dismissed.

4. H.B.T./Z‑82/K Application dismissed.