' SAHIB KHAN, J.--- Through this appeal appellants assailed the impugned order dated 8-8-2009 passed by the learned Executing Court in a case of Execution No,14/07.
2. Briefly stated facts are that the appellants/judgment-debtors filed an objection petition on the execution of decree dated 23-5-2007 passed by august Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan.
The Executing Judge on 8-8-2009, turned down an application under Order XXVII, Rule 8-A, C.P.C.
Filed by the appellant for A exemption, depositing and furnishing . Security for payment of decretal amount in the Court.
3. We heard the learned Assistant Advocate-General and perused the record.
4. The learned Assistant Advocate General referred Order XXVII, Rule 8-A C.P.C. And submitted that this provision of C.P.C. Exempts the Government and his authorised officials from providing securities and deposits in the Court. Furthermore, he in his argument submitted the contract actually was awarded to Frontier Works Organization who himself is responsible for payments, but the FWO was not arrayed as party in the suit. Therefore the objection petition filed by the judgment-debtors may be heard and decided.
5. We just to clear the scope and applicability of referred provisions of law, by the A.A.-G, desire to reproduce and reads as under:-- 'ORDER XXI, RULE 23A DEPOSIT OF DECRETAL AMOUNT, ETC. ---An objection by the judgment-debtor to the execution of a decree shall not be considered by the Court unless - -
(a) In the case of a decree for the payment of money, he either deposits the decretal amount in Court or furnishes security for its payment; and
(b) In the case of any other decree, he furnishes security for the due performance of the decree.
' ORDER XXVII, RULE 8A.---No security to be required from Government or a public officer in certain cases. - - No such security as is mentioned in rules 5 and 6 of Order XLI shall be required from the (Government) or, where the (Government) has undertaken the defence of the suit, from any public officer sued in respect of an act alleged to be done by him in his official capacity.
' ORDER XLI, RULE 5. -Stay by Appellate Court.---(1) An appeal shall not operate as a stay of proceedings under a decree or order appealed from except so far as the Appellate Court may order, nor shall execution of a decree be stayed by reason only of an appeal having been preferred from the decree; but the Appellate Court may for sufficient cause order stay of execution of such decree.
' ORDER XLI, RULE 6.---Security in case of order for execution of decree appealed from---Where an order is made for the execution of a decree from which an appeal is pending the Court which passed the decree shall, on sufficient cause being shown by the appellant, require security to be taken for the restitution of any property which may be or has been taken in execution of the decree or for the payment of the value of such property and for the due performance of the decree or order of the Appellate Court, or the Appellate Court may for like cause direct the Court which passed the decree to take such security.
7. Order XXI, Rule 23A has been specifically provided in law (C.P.C.) for the purposes where a "Judgment-debtor file objection on execution of decree" and thus applicable only in the cases where objection petition has been filed against the execution of a decree. The legislature made the provision obligatory by providing "SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED" unless in the case of decree for payment of money, deposits decretal amount in the Court or furnish security for its payment.
However, the Executing Court is empowered either order B for deposit of decretal amount or order for furnishing security for payment of decretal amount.
8. As apparent from plain reading of the provision referred Order XXVII, Rule 8A. This provision of law no doubt exempts the Government or public servant specified therein from providing security in certain cases. Those cases have also been disclosed in this provision too and are Order XLI, Rules 5 and 6, but not include Order XXI, Rule 23A.
10(sic). The provision contained in Rules 5 and 6 of Order XLI of C.P.C. If taken carefully are inapplicable in the case in hand, and reflects a situation other than the case in hand. We deem the application filed under Order XXVII Rule 8A has no nexus with the situation, except just to delay and linger on the execution proceedings which are already delayed without any cause and reason. The Executing Judge has rightly appreciated the law and fact and did not allow the C application. The execution proceedings are just lingering on for nothing. The judgment-debtor instead of going here and there to avail some time should follow the decree passed by the august Court after taking into the consideration all the facts, and figures. However, they cannot be debarred from the legal remedies if actually available to them under law. For time being if appellants are not in position to deposit the decretal amount in the Court they can request for allowing them for furnishing security that too from the Executing Court and the matter is well within the competence of Executing Court.
11. We with the above observations dismissed the appeal to be meritless. However, parties shall bear their own costs.