AGHA ABID MAJEED KHAN vs IDREES AHMED — 2026 PLD 280 SUPREME-COURT

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

AGHA ABID MAJEED KHAN VS IDREES AHMED. S. 51---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)---Execution of money decree---Blocking of CNIC of judgment debtor, challenge to---Powers of Executing Court, scope of---Whether deprivation of civil identity was permissible in execution of a money decree?---Brief facts were that the petitioner, being a judgment debtor under a money decree passed in a summary suit in favour of respondent No. 1, faced execution proceedings wherein the Executing Court ordered the blocking of his Computerized National Identity Card (CNIC) until he furnished surety for the decretal amount; this order was upheld by the High Court in revision, leading the petitioner to approach the Supreme Court by filing of the present petition for leave to appeal---The central issue requiring determination was "whether, in execution of a money decree, the Executing Court possessed lawful jurisdiction under Section 51 of the C.P.C. to direct the blocking of a judgment debtor's CNIC as a mode of execution?"---Held: The decree in the present case was simply a money decree on a summary chapter suit---Such a decree required or made permissible execution by blocking the CNIC of the judgment debtor by resort to Section 51(e)---One might as well then (for instance) also allow the Executing Court to order the blocking of utilities (such as electricity, water, etc.) from the residence or workplace of a judgment debtor for execution of a money decree---While a robust approach could certainly be taken to ensure execution, it could not be so muscular (especially in the exercise of a general power of the nature conferred by clause (e)) as essentially depriving the judgment debtor of an essential aspect of living---Leave petition was converted into an appeal and allowed, in circumstances.

AGHA ABID MAJEED KHAN vs IDREES AHMED — 2026 PLD 280 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 PLD