' It is submitted that respondent No.1 filed a suit for recovery of dowry against Faiz-ul-Hassan respondent No.2 before the Judge, Family Court, Peshawar which was decreed ex parte on 25-7- 1995. Respondent No.2 filed an application for setting aside the ex parte decree which was also dismissed on 9-9-1999. Although on appeal, the District Judge, Peshawar vide order, dated 25-1- 2000 remanded the case to the Senior Civil Judge/Judge, Family Court, Peshawar, the latter again passed a decree in favour of respondent No.1 on 13-3-2000. Respondent No.2/judgment-debtor filed a writ petition before Peshawar High Court, Peshawar which was dismissed on 2-10-2,000. The civil petition for leave to appeal was also declined by the Honourable Supreme. Court of Pakistan.
2. In the meanwhile, an execution petition was filed by respondent No.1 on 11-12-1996. A perusal of the judgment dated 22-7-2004 passed by Additional District Judge, Gujrat would show that the learned counsel for both objector Saeed Ahmed son of Nizam Din and the decree-holder agreed that the property in question has been attached by the learned Civil Judge, Gujrat in pursuance of a precept issued by the Executing Court at Peshawar. Extract from the impugned judgment to this effect is reproduced as under:-- "Learned counsel for both the parties stated at bar that the attachment in question was made pursuant to a precept issued by learned Executing Court at Peshawar."
3. It was in this view of the matter, that the attachment proceedings were treated to have been made under section 46 of the Code of Civil procedure which deals with the precept.
4. Continuing the narration of facts, it is noticed that Saeed Ahmed petitioner filed an objection petition in Court of the learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Gujrat, wherein he claimed that the attached property situated at Servis Morre G.T. Road Gujrat which was originally owned by the judgment- debtor respondent No.2 was transferred to the petitioner/ objector on 7-9-1991 for a consideration of Rs.10,00,000 and that the possession was also handed over to the objector. The petitioner further claimed to have made improvements to the tune of Rs.5,00,000. The petitioner/objector further relied upon an agreement dated 14-12-1998 to the same effect. It was further contended that the petitioner then filed a suit for specific performance of the said agreement to sell which was pending adjudication before a Civil Court.
5. These objections were considered threadbare by the learned Civil Judge at Gujrat and vide order, dated 31-10-2001 the objections were dismissed on merits.
6. As earlier stated the appeal against the said order of the Civil Judge, Gujrat was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, Gujrat. Later this Court vide judgment dated 29-4-2004 remanded the case to the learned Appellate Court for a fresh decision.
7. Upon remand, the learned Appellate Court passed the impugned order, dated 22-7-2004 wherein, it was found that even the objections which were filed by the petitioner were legally not competent, as no objections could be filed during the proceedings of a precept. It was held that it was not the execution proceedings which were transferred to the Civil Court at Gujrat by the Executing Court at Peshawar but that it was only a precept issued within the meaning of section 46, C.P.C. As the property which was to be attached and belonged to the judgment-debtor, was situated within the jurisdiction of the Court at Gujrat.
8. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that both the order dated 31-10- 2001 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Gujrat and the judgment, dated 22-7-2004 passed by the Additional District Judge, Gujrat were in the absence of lawful authority and illegal. It is contended that as there was nothing on the record to show that a precept was sent by the Executing Court at Peshawar to the learned Civil Judge at Gujrat, it was not lawful for the learned Additional District Judge, Gujrat to hold that objection petition during the proceedings of a precept were not competent. It is prayed that the case be remanded to the learned Additional District Judge for deciding the appeal on merits, as the objection petition according to the petitioner was competent.
9. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner have no force. Firstly, nothing has been submitted to assail a well-considered order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Gujrat dated 31-10-2001 which has considered the claim of the objection petitioner on merits and had dismissed the same for cogent reasons. Although the learned Appellate Court in the impugned judgment dated 22-7-2004 has not discussed the merits of the order of the trial Court, yet it has been found on valid grounds that what was pending before the Civil Court at Gujrat was in the nature of a precept. For coming to this conclusion, the learned Appellate Court had relied upon the statement made at bar by the counsel for the parties which included the objection petitioner. This being the case there is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in fact the main execution proceedings stood transferred to the Civil Court at Gujrat. A perusal of section 46, C.P.C. Would also make it clear that the Executing Court issues a precept to the Court having jurisdiction in the matter where the property belonging to the judgment-debtor and which is proposed to be attached is situated.
10. I am also not unmindful of the fact that the decree in favour of respondent No.1 was passed as far back as on 25-7-1995 and despite the fact that the same was upheld even upto the Honourable Supreme Court, the same has not been able to be executed till today primarily upon objections filed by none other than the brother of the judgment-debtor.
11. Resultantly, this Civil Revision is completely without merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine.