Find a Lawyer

Civil Revision No.848 of 1979, decided on 27th October, 1979.

‑‑‑O. XXI, rr.97 to 100 & 103‑‑Execution of Pre‑emption decree Objection to‑‑Filing of independent suit‑‑Where pre‑emption decree had obtained finality, execution thereof could only be objected to by showing any sufficient and reasonable cause according to procedure laid down under O.XXI, rr.97 to 100, Civil Procedure Code, 1908‑‑Independent suit on behalf of judgment‑debtor to challenge execution of decree held, was barred by O.XXI, r.103, Civil Procedure Code.

Sh. Zahoorul Haq for Petitioner.

Raja Muhammad Sabir for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 27th October, 1979.

A suit for possession by pre‑emption titled as Yaseen v. Muhammad Zaman pertaining to the suit property was filed on 25‑2‑1972 by Yaseen respondent in the Court of Civil Judge, Pind Dadan Khan, which was decreed in his favour on 28‑1‑1976. An appeal against that judgment and decree of the trial Court was also dismissed on 23‑10‑1976 by the learned District Judge, Jhelum, and as such matter in dispute had attained finality.

2. Yaseen respondent (decree‑holder) filed execution proceedings on 20‑12‑1976 and as a result of it, warrant of possession was issued in his favour, but the same could not be executed on account of an interim injunction issued by Civil Judge in a suit for the issuance of permanent injunction filed by the petitioner (judgment‑debtor). The case of the petitioner as narrated in his plaint was that subsequent to the passing of said pre‑emption decree, he and respondent decree‑holder compromised and adjusted the matter in dispute on payment of Rs.10,000 to the respondent vide a receipt and an agreement deed dated 6‑12‑1974 and 12‑1‑1977 respectively purported to have been executed by Yaseen respondent in favour of the petitioner.

3. The propriety of interim injunction order dated 5‑5‑1977 issued by the learned Civil Judge was challenged in appeal by the respondent. The learned District Judge vide his order dated 21‑6‑1977 accepted the appeal and set aside the order of the learned Civil Judge and dismissed said application filed under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2 by the petitioner leaving the parties to bear their own costs. However, while disposing of that appeal, the learned appellate Court cast grave doubts and suspicions upon the correctness and genuineness of the aforesaid documents relied upon by the petitioner. He, therefore, himself examined the register of petition‑writer and after examining the said register, he ordered to hold an inquiry into the matter vide order dated 3‑7‑1977. The inquiry was entrusted to Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Khan, Civil Judge, Jhelum and after his transfer the matter was inquired by his successor namely Chaudhry Muhammad Munir who submitted the inquiry report to the learned District Judge, Jhelum. Ultimately the learned District Judge after prusing the entire relevant record came to the conclusion that the petition‑writer had been guilty of grave irregularity and subsequently imposed upon him a penalty of Rs.25 and suspended his licence for 2 weeks vide his order dated 1‑11‑1979.

4. After the dismissal of appeal by the learned District Judge, vide order, dated 21‑6‑1977, the petitioner filed a Civil Revision No.621 of 1977 which was dismissed by this Court on 5‑7‑1978 as being infructuous on account of the dismissal of the main suit in default on 13‑2‑1978.

5. Thereafter, an application for restoration was filed on 12‑9‑1978 after the lapse of about 7 months, This was dismissed with costs by Senior Civil Judge Jhelum on 30‑4‑1979. The order was also challenged in appeal which was also dismissed in limine by the learned District Judge on 16‑6‑1977, hence this revision petition.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant photo copies of certain documents placed on the file. The main suit which was required to be restored by the petitioner in fact on the face of it seems to be mala fide with an obvious object to prolong the matter on one pretext of the other. The so‑called claim of the petitioner was based upon certain forged documents and he contrary to all cannons of justice and fair play approached the Court of law with unclean hands and as such was not entitled to any discretionary relief. Moreover, the pre‑emption decree had attained finality and the execution of which could only be objected on showing any sufficient and reasonable cause according to the procedure laid down under Order XXI, rule 97 to rule 100 Code of Civil Procedure. Under Order XXI, rule 103 C . P. C . , the petitioner (judgment‑debtor) was precluded from filing any independent suit challenging the execution of a decree. Therefore, Order XXI, rule 103 furnishes a complete bar. I went through the entire evidence adduced on the record with the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner but I could not find any patent error or any material irregularity or illegality on the file. The concurrent findings of the learned lower Courts are based upon cogent evidence produced on the record. However there is nothing on the record to attract the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petition has no merit and is hereby dismissed with costs throughout.

H . B . T . Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.