' On 29-5-2006 the appellant filed a suit against the respondents. Vide order, dated 1-6-2006 the learned Judge, Banking Court-II, Faisalabad, has dismissed the same as being not maintainable.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant insists that the suit wasmaintainable as section 47, C.P.C.
Would apply only to the parties to the suit.
3. We have examined the plaint, certified copy whereof, has been appended with this R.F.A. By the learned counsel, with his assistance. In para-I it is stated that the appellant is the Chief Executive of Messrs Qaisaro Export House (Pvt.).Limited, Faisalabad. He purchased 33.33% shares of the respondent. No,1 vide transfer deed, dated 12-1-2004 while one Shafqat Ali son of Shaukat All purchased 33.34% shares of respondent No,1 on the same date and have become the Directors/share:- holders in the Company. In para-2, it was stated that the respondent No,1 obtained loans from respondent. No,7 who instituted a suit for recovery of Rs,3,47,50,070 in the Banking Court-II, Faisalabad, on 4-5-2004. This suit was decreed on 25-1-2006. Execution proceedings were tiled. It was complained that the respondent No,7 is trying to execute the decree against respondent No,1 and is going to get the superstructure raised by the appellant on the first floor of the building of respondent No,1 attached/sold in execution of the decree. A declaration was sought that the appellant along with his father and brother is the owner of the super-structure including building, machinery, fittings, etc., on the first floor of respondent No,1 and the portion is not liable to be attached and sold to satisfy the decree, dated 25-1-2006 passed by the learned Judge, Banking Court.
4. The learned Judge, Banking Court, examined the plaint and dismissed the suit as not maintainable as according to him, the execution petition is pending and objections can be filed in the same and the suit is barred under section 47, C.P.C. It was further observed that such like objections have already been filed and one pending.
5. It is but obvious on a plain reading of the plaint that the suit is not competent as the same pertains to execution, discharge and satisfaction of the decree. In fact, the appellant is questioning the attachment and sale of the property in execution of the decree.
6. So far as the said contention of the learned counsel is concerned, the same fails to take note of the entire. Provision Of section 47, C.P.C. Under section 47, C.P.C. Not only question arising between the,parties but also their representatives are to be decided by the Court executing the decree and not by a separate suit. Learned counsel is also not in a A position to controvert the observation in the impugned order that the objections having been filed by his clients are pending in the learned Execution Court. This R.F.A.. Is wholly frivolous and is dismissed in limine.