Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 4096 of 1983, decided on 22nd October, 1984

--S. 17--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXI, r. 100--Eviction order--Execution of--Objection to--Person other than judgment-debtor not bound by ejectment order passed by Rent Controller, held, could not object execution. Mst. Gulzar Begum v. Riaz Malik and others N L R 1984 Civil 800 ref.

--Art. 9--Writ jurisdiction--Invocation of--Petitioner seeking alternative remedy by filing a suit--Such circumstance, held, could be a ground for dismissal of writ petition.

Syed Najamul Hassan Kazmi for Petitioners.

Khalid Mahmood Pasha for Respondent No. 1.

Nemo for other Respondents.

Date of hearing: 22nd October, 1984.

An ejectment petition brought by respondent No.1, against respondent No,2, was allowed by the Rent Controller. In the course of execution proceedings, the petitioners filed objections inter alia on the ground that the property in dispute belongs to them. However, in view of the amendment of section 17 of the Rent Restriction Ordinance, by section 6 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Amendment Ordinance, 1979, whereby the forum 'civil Court' empowered to execute the ejectment order, has been substituted by the Rent Controller, the objection-petition was not entertained. In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge, referred to my unreported decision given in C.R.816/82 and declined to intervene. Accordingly, the petitioners' appeal was dismissed on 23-7-1983. They have now invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined, the record. The only point to be adjudicated upon, in this writ petition is, as to whether after the amendment of section 17, an objection-petition under Order XXI, rule 100, C.P.C. is competent before a Rent Controller, by a person other than the judgment-debtor, not bound by the ejectment-order. This issue was dealt with by me in detail in my judgment, dated 12-7-1984, in the case of Mst. Gulzar Begum v. Riaz Malik, etc. in Writ Petition No.3624 of 1983 N L R 1984 Civil 800 and it was held that such objection petition does not lie.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, has been confronted with the said decision. He, however, relies upon Quality Steel Corporation v. Ch. -Muhammad Tufail 1984 C L C 2255 in which another Single Bench of this Court has maintained that even after the amendment of section 17, an objection petition is competent. But from the perusal of this report I find that the case was not argued before the learned Single Judge, from the angle as, was done in the case of Gulzar Begum. I have not been', therefore, persuaded to differ with th'e view already taken by me in Gulzar Begum's case.

4. Needless to mention that the petitioners have already filed civil suit and are, thus, seeking an alternative remedy. This would b an additional ground for dismissing the instant writ petition.

5. For the foregoing reasons this writ petition is dismissed, but with no order as to costs.

M.B.A. Writ refused.