' SHAH JEHAN KHAN, J.-- This Constitutional petition is directed against the decree and judgment of the learned Judge, Family Court, Mardan, dated 16-2-2004 decreeing suit of the plaintiff- respondent No,1 which was also upheld in appeal by learned Additional District Judge, Mardan vide judgment, dated 9-4-2004.
2. While hearing the writ petition in motion, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that he will not otherwise grudge the finding of the Family Court duly upheld in appeal but since the property decreed has now been converted into a commercial market and the petitioners intends to settle the dispute with respondent-decree-holder. In this view of the matter, pre-admission notice was served upon respondent No,1 in response whereof she appeared along with her counsel.
Respondent No,2 who is husband of decree-holder/respondent No,1 and the brother of petitioners Nos.'1 to 9 also put his appearance without notice.
3. Today we put suggestion made by the petitioners to respondent No,1 for any settlement in lieu of the property decreed in her favour but she refused to enter into any settlement with the petitioners and prayed for disposal of the writ petition on merits.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners was asked to argue his case on merits, but he frankly conceded that the impugned decree and judgment cannot be questioned through a Constitutional petition. However, the property decreed in favour of respondent No,1 was a vacant site at the time of execution of deed by the petitioner's predecessor in lieu of dower but subsequent to the execution of deed a portion of it was converted into a commercial building and rest of the area measuring about 10 Marlas is still vacant site. Suit of the respondent No,1 was .Decreed on the basis of deed Exh.P.W.2/1 in the contents whereof a cemented built up house over an area of 10 Marlas of land in the given boundaries was given to her in lieu of dower. The decree in favour of respondent No,1 could not be executed in letter and spirit as there is no cemented built up house on the land decreed in favour of respondent No,1 in lieu of dower.
4-A. Since the learned counsel for the petitioners could not object to the decree and judgment of the two Courts below for interference by this Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction and the execution of decree is the job of trial Court any objection in that regard could be raised and disposed of by the Executing Court. In these circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed in limine.