' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J. On 15-11-2000, respondent No, 1 filed an application for ejectment of the appellant. This was allowed by the learned Rent Controller on 2-5-2006 and the ejectment order was confirmed by learned ADJ., Lahore, on 6-2-2007. S.A.O. No,29-2007 was dismissed by this Court on 20-3-2007. Execution proceedings were commenced. On 27-4-2007, the appellant filed objections. He stated that he has purchased the shop of Muhammad Sharif, co-sharer of the property. He has filed a suit for partition. In the same breath, he stated that he had filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement against the LRs of Muhammad Sharif. Objections were contested and were dismissed by the learned Executing Court on 8-11-2007. He filed a first appeal which has been dismissed by learned Addl. District Judge, Lahore on 13-12-2007.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that although there was an agreement to sell in favour of the appellant yet a sale deed has since been executed by the LRs of Muhammad Sharif in favour of his two sons on 27-10-2007 and as such the execution proceedings could not be allowed to continue on the basis of ejectment order passed in favour of respondent who is other co-owner.
Learned counsel for the respondent contends that the sale deed is not in favour of the appellant rather his sons and he could not claim to be a co-owner so as to defeat the ejectment order and execution thereof.
3. I have examined the copies of the records. I find that there is no provision for second appeal against an order passed in execution and affirmed by the appellate Court. Learned counsel prays that it be treated as a civil revision. So ordered.
4. As noted by me above, in the first instance, the case of the appellant was that the other co- owner namely Muhammad Sharif had agreed to sell his share to him and that he has filed a suit for specific performance against his LRs, It appears that during the pendency of the appeal against order, dated 8-11-2007 rejecting objections, a sale deed was executed in favour of two sons of the appellant on 27-11-2007 by the LRs of Muhammad Sharif who was co-owner. To my mind, the petitioner cannot claim to be co-owner of the property on the basis of the said sale deed admittedly executed in favour of his C sons. He was adjudged to be a tenant and ordered to be ejected accordingly by the learned Rent Controller and the appellate authority as also this Court.
5. I have also examined the said sale deed which is present at pages 64 to 68 of the paper book. I find that the LRs have sold specific property to Muhammad Ilyas and Abbas sons of Muhammad Ali, appellant. It has been specifically stated that the property comprised of two shops, a room on the ground floor and a room in the upper floor with gas and electric meters and bounded as, east thoroughfare, west house of Aslam Bajwa, north property of Abdul Jabbar and south six feet street.
It will be seen that property of Abdul Jabbar, respondent has clearly been shown to be located towards north. On my query, learned counsel for the appellant does not deny the said "fact. This being so, even if it be assumed that the sale deed is in favour of the appellant even then he does not become a co-owner in the property in question wherefrom he has been ordered to be ejected on the application of Abdul Jabbar, respondent. The S.A.O. Treated as C.R. Is accordingly dismissed with costs throughout. Counsel fee is fixed at Rs .5000 .
Appeal/.