Citation Name: 2023 YLR 697 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case ABDUL QAYYUM vs SHAMIM AKHTAR O

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Citation Name: 2023 YLR 697 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case ABDUL QAYYUM VS SHAMIM AKHTAR O. XXI, R. 86, C.P.C.---Word "forfeited" used in O.XXI, R.86, C.P.C.---Forfeiture amount belongs to the government and none of the parties has any right or interest therein. Citation Name: 2023 YLR 697 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case ABDUL QAYYUM VS SHAMIM AKHTAR S.5 & Sched.---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXI, Rr. 84, 85 & 86---Execution of decree passed by Family Court---Auction of husband's property---Right to forfeited money---Principle of unjust enrichment---Petitioner made various payments towards maintenance of his children and wife, but the decree was not satisfied---Executing Court directed auction of petitioner's agricultural land---One lady " Z.S" was declared as highest bidder and deposited Rs. 136500/- out of her purchase-money---Subsequently lady " Z.S" could not arrange balance purchase amount owing to which the Executing Court forfeited deposit of lady and directed re-auction of the property of petitioner---Second auction was held and one person "M.A" succeeded as bidder and (1/4 of the bid amount ) was deposited but remaining sum of bid was not paid by M.A and he was declared as defaulted by Executing Court---Executing Court forfeited money deposited by bidder---Respondents (mother and children) moved an application for withdrawal of deposited mone; Executing Court deducted auction expenses and allowed the application of respondents---When Executing Court intimated third auction of the property the petitioner submitted an application that he sought permission to pay sum in full and final settlement of the decree---Respondents contended that they were entitled to the forfeited amount and petitioner could not claim any set off against it---Executing Court dismissed application of petitioner---Petitioner filed revision petition before Appellate Court, which was dismissed--- Validity--- Order XXI, R. 84 of C.P.C. stipulated that whenever an immovable property was auctioned, the person declared to be the purchaser should immediately, after such declaration, pay 25 % of the amount of his purchase money to the Court Auctioneer and in default thereof the property should be re-sold forthwith----Said condition was violated when the first auction was held---Order XXI, R.85 of the C.P.C. stated that the auction purchaser should pay the full amount of the purchase-money payable by him into the Court by the fifteenth day from the sale of the property and O.XXI, R.86 defined the consequences of default---Under O.XXI, R. 86 of C.P.C. the Court may, if it thinks fit, after defraying the expenses of the sale forfeit the deposit of defaulting purchaser to the Government---In the case in hand, the Executing Court had not invoked R. 86 of O.XXI of the C.P.C. and forfeited the deposit of lady "Z.S" and person "M.A"--- Executing Court had no jurisdiction to give it over to the respondents ---Claim of petitioner and respondents was not only contrary to O.XXI, R. 86 of the C.P.C. but also the principle of unjust enrichment---Respondents should be directed to return the money unlawfully paid to them but it might be extremely difficult, if not possible, for respondents to do same at this point in time---Since respondents were entitled to recover that amount from the petitioner, the account would be settled if the Executing Court recovered that sum from petitioner and paid to the government----Constitutional petition was dismissed with the direction that petitioner should pay whatever amount was due to respondents under the decree and he should have also paid the amount of the forfeited deposit into the Executing Court which shall be deposited in the government treasury and in case of default the Executing Court should forthwith initiate proceedings for the auction of the petitioner's property---Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Citation Name: 2023 YLR 697 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case ABDUL QAYYUM vs SHAMIM AKHTAR O — 2023 YLR 697 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 YLR