3. It is mainly contended by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that any order
against a person who is not party to the
proceedings is not executable against him.
He has placed reliance on 2006 SCMR 913.
He submits that the attached property is
under the exclusive ownership and
possession of the petitioner and the
judgment-debtor has no concern with this
property. He further contends that the
petitioner never stood guarantor of the
judgment debtor during the proceedings and
in such circumstances the sole property of
the petitioner cannot be attached by the
learned executing court. He lastly contends
that the impugned orders dated 16.10.2014
and 19.02.2015 passed by the learned lower
courts are liable to be set aside. On the other
hand learned counsel for respondents No.3
and 4 has supported the impugned orders.
He also relied upon case law titled as “Sultan Ahmad v. Judge Family Court and 5
others” (PLD 2012 Lahore 148).
Part of Judgment of
Lahore High Court
WP- Family Law
11914-15
| 2015 LHC 6866 |
0 comments:
Post a Comment