' MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J.---Instant constitutional petition prayed revisional order dated 3- 11-2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore to be declared illegal, void and of no legal consequence, whereby revision petition filed by Respondent No.1 was accepted and order of the executing Court dated 4-6-2004 dismissing objection petition was reversed.
2. Succinctly, relevant facts are that residential Quarter No.182/15-B-I, Quaide-Azam Town, Township Lahore, was allotted by the Housing and Physical Department in favour of one Abdul Razzaq son of Nazir Ahmed in the year 1971, who entered into an agreement with the petitioner for sale of his quarter for a consideration of Rs.25,000 on 1-12-1976. The allottee failed to perform his part of contract which necessitated filing of suit for specific performance of the agreement by the petitioner. Suit by the petitioner was ultimately decreed on 20-2-1995, where against allottee/vendor of the petitioner filed an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Which after due contest by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, who was cognizant of the matter, vide order dated 31-1-2003.
3. Judgment-debtor who had agreed to sell out the quarter allotted to him, filed a revision petition before the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, but remained unsuccessful as the same was dismissed on 25-6-2003. He thereafter, filed a constitutional petition before this Court, which was also dismissed on 4-12-2003. In this manner decree for specific performance in favour of the petitioner was maintained up to this Court.
4. Petitioner went in execution proceedings under the judgment/decree dated 20-2-1995, pending which respondent No.1 filed an objection petition under section 47, C.P.C. Praying dismissal of execution petition. Petitioner contested the objection petition by filing his written reply on the ground that Respondent No.1 had no right to obstruct or resist execution of decree. The executing Court after hearing the parties, dismissed the objection petition summarily vide order dated 5-6- 2004.
5. Respondent No.1 filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, but on objection by the Court regarding its maintainability, a revision petition was filed assailing order of the executing Court dated 5-6-2004. Learned Additional District Judge in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction, accepted the revision petition and remitted back the case to the executing Court for trial of the objection petition after framing of issues and to determine status of the objector/respondent No.1, vide order dated 3-11-2004. Petitioner, thereafter, filed instant constitutional petition with the prayer noted above. Respondent No.1 in response to notice by this Court appeared and was represented through his counsel.
6. I have heard the learned counsel . For the parties and have examined the record, appended herewith. Undisputedly, any order by the executing Court under section 47, C.P.C. Was appealable but the revisional Court incorrectly objected to maintainability of appeal of respondent No.1 and wrongly decided the revision petition in presence of appeal provisions. Be that as it may, no fault lies with respondent No.1, as he initially filed an appeal against the order of the executing Court dated 5-6-2004, thus I preferred to determine validity or otherwise of the remand order by the learned Additional District Judge, as it exists. Respondent No.1 claimed to have entered into an agreement to sell with Abdul Razzaq son of Nazir Ahmed on 11-3-1996 and obtained possession of the quarter, after passing of decree in favour of the petitioner. On the one hand, mere agreement to sell neither creates any right, title or interest in its holder, nor equips him with any right to resist execution of decree already finalized, whereas on the other hand, the alleged agreement to sell by the judgment-debtor to defeat decree against him has no legal value and that too without determination by a Court of competent jurisdiction. Learned Additional District Judge, being simply impressed that Respondent No.1 holds an agreement to sell for an amount of Rs.3,50,000, who annexed with his objection petition certain utility bills of sui gas and water supply, reversed well- reasoned order of the executing Court, without any just cause/ reason. Law regarding resistance/ obstruction to the execution process is given with clarity in rules 99 and 100 of Order XXI of the C.P.C. In earlier mentioned rule Court on satisfaction that the resistance or obstruction caused by any person other than judgment-debtor claiming in good faith to be in possession of the property in his own rights can dismiss an execution petition, but in this case Respondent No.1 undoubtedly, claimed agreement with judgment-debtor, thus was a person claiming under him and could not render resistance to the execution of the decree passed against his vendor. Similarly, under rule 100 of Order XXI of C.P.C., a dispossessed person with his own independent right/title, not derived from judgment-debtor, can seek restoration of possession from the executing Court and on such objection petition the executing Court is legally obliged to investigate the matter. Objection petition by a person like respondent No.1 in whose favour neither title has matured nor he claims or asserts his own any independent right, no further investigation was needed, as he himself claimed that judgment-debtor entered into agreement to sell after passing of decree already finalized. It was assertively argued by the learned counsel for Respondent No.1 that he too moved an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Against the decree under execution, thus his objection petition was wrongly dismissed by the executing Court summarily. This stance has not impressed me for the reason that mere filing of application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Would not stop the executing Court from undertaking the lawful process for execution, discharged and satisfaction of the decree finalized up to the level of this Court.
7. For the reasons noted above, respondent No.2 committed grave illegality in accepting revision petition by respondent No.1, directing the executing Court to frame issues on his frivolous objection petition, as he had no independent right in the property in question. This petition is consequently accepted, judgment/order dated 3-11-2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, remanding the case to the executing Court is declared to be illegal/void and writ as prayed is accordingly issued with no order as to costs.