Find a Lawyer

Execution First Appeal No.113 and Civil Miscellaneous No.2746/C of 1986, decided on 26th May, 1986.

‑‑‑0. XXXVIII, R. 5, 0. XXI, R. 58 & 0. XLIII, R. 1(q)‑‑Attachment before judgment‑‑Objections to attachment of property in execution of decree‑‑Locus standi to object‑‑Objectors/appellants admitting in memo. of appeal that property in their occupation and purchased by them was different from property which decree‑holder had applied for attachment during pendency of his suit‑‑Appeal being against execution of decree wherein appellants had no right or interest as per their admission, such appellants, held, would have no locus standi to agitate against proceedings taken by executing Court‑‑Bona fide of appellants would be in serious doubt wherein memo. of appeal such appellant had urged untenable objections against decree itself which would be indicative of fact that objectors to execution were inducted into proceeding for benefit of judgment‑debtor‑‑Where proceedings launched by objectors/ appellants appeared to be dishonestly motivated, such appeal being without substance and frivolous would be dismissed in limine.

‑‑‑Copying agency‑‑Certified copies‑‑Procedure‑‑Practice prevailing in copying agency with regard to adding photostat face pages of relevant files to every attested photostat copy of document disapproved by High Court‑‑Such practice, apart from causing inconvenience and wrongful gain and loss, held, amounted to mischief and cheating and prima facie fell within definition of false documents contained in S.464, P.P.C. and person responsible liable to be proceeded against under 5.466, P. P. C.‑ District Judge directed to require and send explanations of concerned officials who were responsible for preparing, comparing, attesting and issuing of said copies, so that appropriate action could be taken against them.

Abdul Shakoor for Petitioners.

Respondent Sultan Ahmad sued out for execution of his money decree of Rs.60,000 passed on 16‑4‑1984 against Tahir Hussain and Mazhar Hussain sons of Muhammad Ali, through sale of shop bearing No.27/28, Block No.3, Sargodha which had already been attached in the pendency of the suit. The appellants Shaukat Ali and Azhar Hussain put in an objection petition therein to claim title in the shop to themselves, by alleging that they had acquired it without knowledge of the litigation pending between the above-named. By its order, dated 4‑6‑1985, executing Court directed the objectors to within ten days either deposit the decretal amount of Rs.60,000 in cash or furnish a Bank guarantee of the equivalent value. Instead of complying with this order, objectors put in an application in the executing Court on 18‑7‑1985 for modification of the order dated 4‑6‑1985 so as to be allowed to furnish Bank guarantee for 1/4th of the decretal amount. By its order, dated 27‑3‑1986 (only incomplete copy placed at page 40 of this file) executing Court rejected the application but allowed them to deposit the decretal amount under protest within one week with a further provision that otherwise their objection petition will be deemed to have been dismissed and put off the file to 3‑4‑1986 for further proceedings when counsel for the objectors informed the executing Court that a stay order has been passed by the appellate Court whereat the matter was adjourned to 8‑5‑1986 to await its order. On this date (8‑5‑1986) Shaukat Ali, one of the objector‑appellants, appeared in person and stated that appeal has been dismissed whereat executing Court dismissed the objection petition on account of their failure to deposit the decretal amount and issued warrant for sale of the shop. This is the order impugned in this appeal, instituted on 25‑5‑1986.

2. The order, dated 8‑5‑1986 is actually passed in affirmation of the order already passed on 27‑3‑1986 where against a revision petition was filed by the objectors on 1‑4‑1986 in the Court of the District Judge, Sargodha where they also secured an order on 21‑4‑1986 about suspension of operation of the said order of the executing Court but the revision petition was returned by the learned District Judge on 4‑5‑1986 for the reason of the matter being in excess of the pecuniary jurisdiction of his Court. Hence this appeal.

3. In para. 8(b) of the memo of this appeal, appellants have themselves admitted that the property in their occupation and purchased by them is different from Shop No.27/28,Block No.3, Sargodha where about decree‑holder had applied under Order XXXVIII, rule 5 of the C.P.C. during the pending of his suit and since it is the same shop which is now being proceeded against pursuant to the order passed for its attachment before judgment, therefore, on their own showing of the appellants, they do not have any right or locus standi to agitate against the proceedings taken by the executing Court. Moreover, bona fides of the appellants is open to serious doubt for the reason that in their memorandum of appeal they have urged untenable objections even against the decree itself by asserting that it could not be passed against Mazhar Hussain, which are indicative of the likelihood of their having been inducted into these proceedings to act for the benefit of the judgment‑debtors. The proceedings launched by the objector‑appellants appear to be dishonestly motivated to gain time.

4. This appeal has no substance and is only frivolous. It is accordingly dismissed in limine.

5. However, before parting with this case I want to place on record my disapproval of the practice, prevailing in the Copying Agency maintained under the control of the learned District Judge, Sargodha with regard to adding photostats of face‑pages of the relevant files to every attested photostat copy of document issued to an applicant. This is not only causes inconvenience in perusing the certified copies placed in the appeals and revisions filed here but also unnecessarily adds to the bulk of the files. Apart there from, it puts the applicants to unnecessary financial burdens in their being required to pay for such unapplied for and unwanted sheets added to the desired copies or uses loss to the exchequer in their being issued withou charges. This practice had been in vogue for quite some time and recall that almost a year before, I had required the concerned official; of the said Copying Agency to explain their conduct. They appeared before me in response thereto and I personally explained to them the impropriety of this practice by also bringing home to them the dangers with which it was fraught. They explained that so had been done by them to indicate the nature and particulars of the file from which copy was being issued. But since such an added sheet is easily detachable from the relevant copy and is capable of being used elsewhere, therefore, I pointed out to them that it was safer to hand‑write such particulars on the back side of the certified copy. At that time, while professing ignorance about the implications of their practice, they expressed regrets for it and also promised to give it up and I let them off without taking any action under the hope that they would not repeat it in future but it seems that the concerned officials are incorrigible because in this case they have issued as many as ten photostat certified copies, some from the record of the suit, bearing file number 149 of 1983 and the others from the file of a petition put in for execution of the decree passed therein, which bears a separate number of file, as 32 of 1985 but to seven of the said certified copies, issued on 21‑5‑1986 on the basis of Application No. 6577, dated 20‑5‑1986, there is added a copy each of the face‑page of the plaint and whereas two of such added sheets even carry stamps of particulars borne on their backs, the other five also bear the stamp of attestation signed by the examiner of copies on 21‑5‑1986, despite their being only incomplete documents. Moreover, to one of the copies from the file of execution, issued on 12‑6‑1985 on the basis of Application No. 7176 dated 5‑6‑1985, has again been added a photostat of the face‑page of the plaint from the file of the suit, which is incomplete and yet signed by the Examiner as attested and to another copy of interim orders similarly issued, there is added a photostat of the objection petition (incomplete) which too carries a stamp at its back containing the particulars of a certified copy and has also been signed and dated by the Examiner as 'attested'. These irregularities are liable to be punished departmentally but certified copies of orders and documents from different files being issued in such a way as to be enabled to be passed off as relating to only one file, apart from causing wrongful gain and loss to amount to mischief and cheating, also prima facie falls within the definition of 'false documents; contained in section 464 of the Pakistan Penal Code and is liable to be punished under section 466 thereof for the reason of those copies relating to proceedings of a Court of Justice and causing damage as aforesaid. In this situation, I deem it proper to call upon the learned District Judge, Sargodha to require the concerned officials, who have been responsible for the preparing, comparing, attesting and issuing of the said copies, to immediately show‑cause as to why appropriate action, including their prosecution for the said offences, may not be taken against them. Their explanations will be forwarded to this Court without delay by the learned District Judge, Sargodha, alongwith his own comments.

A.A

Appeal 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.