' IQBAL HAMEED-UR-REHMAN, J.---Through the instant petition, the petitioner prays that the impugned order dated 12-1-2010 passed by the learned Executing Court and the judgment and decree dated 17-3-2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge be declared to have been passed without lawful justification and of no legal and genuine case of the petitioner supported by convincing and credible evidence, therefore, the impugned judgments amounts to deprive the petitioner of his valuable rights and to give him discriminatory treatment by condemning unheard which is violative and detrimental to vested rights guaranteed in Articles, 4, 8, 24 and 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. It is further contended that the claim of the petitioner finds support and corroboration from the record available on record and if his share is granted to others, the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and injury if the respondents without disproving the claim of the petitioner, received the entire compensation beyond the entitlement.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have also perused the impugned judgments and other material available on the record.
5. From the perusal of the record, it reveals that respondent No,1 Mst. Jameela Begum filed an execution petition regarding order dated 13-1-2004 passed by this Court and the said order was upheld by the honourable Supreme Court. Regarding the rate of compensation the matter was again challenged before this Court and vide order dated 12-5-2009 the appeal was allowed and the learned Executing Court directed the judgment-debtor to make payment to the petitioner and the respondents according to their shares. The petitioner filed an objection petition and along with the objection petition, he filed an application for temporary injunction and the said application was dismissed by the learned Executing Court and the said order was upheld by the learned. Additional District Judge. As the petitioner has claimed his entitlement in the compensation, therefore, he should challenge the validity of final order or judgment and since the final order/judgment was passed by this Court, he should challenge the validity only of that order in terms of section 12(2), C.P.C. Instead of filing an objection petition before the Executing Court. If respondents Nos .5, 7 to 10 have given statements to A the effect that they had entered into compromise with the petitioner with regard to compensation, they can make mutual adjustments with regard to compensation amount but execution of the decree cannot be disturbed. In this view of the matter, the learned Executing Court rightly dismissed the objection petition of the petitioner and the learned Additional District Judge rightly concurred with the findings of the learned Executing Court.
6. In view of what has been discussed above, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgments calling for interference by this Court in constitution petition. Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed in limine.