' Brief facts of the case are that respondent filed a suit for recovery against Saleem Cotton Ginning Oil Mills, Multan before Honourable Sindh High Court which was decreed on 22-3-1982 for a sum of Rs.38,465. This decree was sent to Multan for its execution. During the execution vide order dated 14-9-1983, the learned executing Court directed attachment of three oil expellers of the petitioner installed on his premises at Vehari Road, Multan. The petitioner filed an objection petition. The same was contested by the judgment-debtor. After recording evidence of the petitioner his application was dismissed vide order dated 30-4-1988. The same was assailed through an appeal which was also dismissed vide order dated 15-12-1988. Both these orders are being assailed through the instant civil revision.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that although the proprietor of judgment-debtor factory i.e. Saleem Cotton Ginning Oil Mills namely Muhammad Ramzan is father of the petitioner factory owner namely Khalil, but they had no working relationship so for as their independent business are concerned, nor they have any share in their respective properties. It is further submitted that in rebuttal to the evidence led by the petitioner, nothing was produced in evidence by the respondent.
3. The respondent was repeatedly sent notices but his service could not be effected and ultimately he was served through daily "Dawn" Karachi for 11-12-2003. On that date, due to non-appearance he was proceeded against ex parte.
4. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. It appears that the two Courts below have fallen in error on account of the relationship of Muhammad Ramzan and Khalil Ahmad being father and son and therefore, held that their properties and businesses are also common. It is in evidence that both were running their separate businesses at separate premises, therefore, merely being closely related would not mean that property of one can be attached for the other. Resultantly this revision is allowed and the orders passed by the two Courts below are set aside. The property attached shall be accordingly released. Disposed of. No order as to costs.