'MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J. --- By this common judgment we propose to dispose of the above-mentioned two petitions involving common questions of law and facts.
2. The dispute relates to plot measuring 10 Marlas 7 square feet bearing No, 233, Jinnah Colony, Faisalabad. It was purchased by Siddique and Rafique etc. Through auction from the Housing and Physical Planning Department, Government of Punjab (hereinafter referred to as the Department) who further transferred the same to Ikram Bibi, the present petitioner. Imam Din (deceased) predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos.6 to 12 filed a suit on 29-51973 against the petitioner for specific performance of an agreement to sell allegedly executed by the petitioner in his favor for sale of the rights in the said plot for a consideration of Rs, 45,000 out of which an amount of Rs, 23,050 was paid as earnest money and the remaining amount was to be paid in future. The suit was decreed by the trial Court on 24-6-1975 after closing evidence of the petitioner on the said date under Order XVII, rule 3, C.P.C. In this suit the department was also one of the defendants.
3. The department in pursuance of the said decree transferred/ executed sale-deed in favor of Imam Din (deceased). The petitioner filed suit for declaration on 27-10-1988 that the said decree had been obtained through fraud which was dismissed by trial Court on 22-10-1977 by holding that merits of the case could not be reopened in a separate and independent suit. Appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the First Appellate Court and Regular Second Appeal too was dismissed by the High Court through judgment dated 16-7-1979.
4. On 2-6-1986 the present suit from which C.P. No,218/L of 2003 has arisen was filed by the petitioner for declaration that the decree of specific performance having not been executed through the process of Court, therefore, the transfer of plot by way of execution of sale-deed by the department was illegal and ineffective against the rights of the petitioner. This suit was dismissed by the trial Court on 30-1-1995. Appeal filed against the said judgment was also dismissed by the First Appellate Court on 16-10-1999 and the civil revision too was dismissed through the impugned judgment, dated 26-11-2002 against which C.P. No, 218-L of 2003 has been filed seeking leave to appeal.
5. The objection of the petitioner in the suit was that the decree of specific performance passed in favor of Imam Din having not been executed through the Court and execution petition had become barred by time, therefore, the department could not, of its own, transfer the plot to the decree-holder Imam Din. In our view the question raised by the petitioner in this suit necessarily relates to execution satisfaction and discharge of decree of specific performance, dated 24-6-1975 and by virtue of section 47, C.P.C. No separate suit was maintainable in relation thereto, as such, the dismissal of the suit of the petitioner was perfectly in accordance with law. C.P. No, 218-L of 2003 is liable to be dismissed which is accordingly dismissed and leave refused.
6. C.P. No, 219-L of 2003 has arisen from an application filed by the petitioner under section 47, C.P.C. Objecting to the transfer of the plot by the department in pursuance of the decree, dated 24- 6-1975 of specific performance in favor of Imam Din. It was the case of the petitioner that since the remaining amount of consideration had not been paid by the decree-holder Imam Din as per terms of the decree he was not entitled to get ownership rights in the land. It was stated in this objection petition that, non-payment of remaining amount had rendered the decree non-existent and un-executable therefore; the department could not by itself transfer the plot to Imam Din. This application was dismissed through judgment, dated 30-1-1995 being not maintainable against which appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the First Appellate Court on 16-10-1999 and Civil Revision filed by the petitioner was also dismissed vide judgment dated 26-11-2002 against which leave is sought. In our view the objection petition filed by the petitioner, prima facie, was maintainable.
'Notice to respondents.