' SH. AZMAT SAEED, J.---This Civil Revision is directed against the appellate judgment dated 30-6- 2009 whereby the appeal filed by the present petitioners against the order dated 10-6-2009 issuing warrant of possession was dismissed.
2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the lis at hand are that respondent No,1 filed a suit for partition inter alia against the petitioners, wherein preliminary decree was passed on 17-11-1996 followed by final decree passed on 15-2-1997. The final judgment and decree was challenged by inter alia the petitioners right up to the honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan unsuccessfully, hence, the judgment and decree dated 15-2-1997 has attained the finality. Subsequently execution proceedings commenced, during the course whereof, vide order dated 27-3-2001 it was directed that warrant of possession be issued in favor of respondent No,1. Apparently, the suit property is in the possession of the petitioners after the matter remained pending through ancillary proceedings.
Eventually the executing court vide order dated 10-6-2009 issued the warrant of possession which was challenged in appeal by the petitioners and the said appeal was dismissed vide judgment impugned dated 30-6-2009.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in fact the original judgment and decree had become inexeuctable. It is further contended that the executing court in fact had reviewed its earlier order dated 11-6-2008 without any legal or factual basis. Learned counsel further contends that the executing court had gone behind the decree, hence, the order issuing the warrant of possession is without jurisdiction. It is further contended that the requisite stamps were not affixed on the decree, hence, the same is inexeuctable.
4. Respondent entered appearance in person and stated that he cannot afford to engage any counsel and that the issue involved in the instant petition have been settled not only by this Court but the apex Court as well, and the execution is being delayed deliberately for the last thirteen years through dilatory tactics being deployed by the petitioners, and instant petition is the continuation of same strategy which is tainted with mala fides.
5. Heard. Perusal of the record of this Court has made very painful reading. It appears that respondent No,1 had filed suit for partition inter alia against the petitioners; preliminary decree was passed on 17-1-1996, and the Local Commission was also appointed who set forth the proposals for the partition of the property in question. It was discovered that certain portions of the property in dispute had in fact been encroached upon by the petitioners and other defendants in the suit during the pendency thereof. By way of final judgment and decree dated 15-2-1997, it was held that respondent No,1 shall transfer the said land to the petitioners and other defendants in shares mentioned therein upon the payment of compensation to be determined by the revenue authorities within thirty days. Apparently, the petitioners failed in making the requisite payment within the stipulated period of thirty days, where after, executing court seized of the matter issued the warrant of possession qua the property in dispute. Said order was disputed initially before the executing court and eventually came up before this Court, and it was held that since the requisite payment had not been made within the specified period of thirty days, hence, the respondent No,1 was entitled to possession, and the warrant in this behalf was rightly issued. Aforesaid is apparent from the order of this Court dated 14-2-2001. A review petition was filed against the said order of this Court which was also dismissed vide order dated 17-10-2005 re-affirming that the warrant of possession was rightly issued and the petitioners had missed the boat by not making the payment within the stipulated time. Said matter was unsuccessfully agitated before the honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan. Subsequently, an attempt was also made for the issuance of the warrant of possession. The matter was again urged before this Court vide order dated 27-6-2007 held and reaffirmed that respondent No,1 was entitled to warrant of possession regarding the property.
Petitioners challenged the said order of this Court before the apex Court through CP which was withdrawn.
6. The executing court vide order dated 27-3-2001 directed that warrant of possession be issued.
Said order and the matter of the entitlement of respondent No,1 regarding issuance of warrant of possession had been settled conclusively not once but twice by this Court in the manner referred to above. Said order had attained finality. However, in the meanwhile on 11-6-2008 the executing court decided to embark upon an exercise by involving the revenue authorities by re-identifying the property in dispute so that possession thereof could be handed over to respondent No, 1 . No final order in this behalf was ever passed. Subsequently, vide order dated 10-6-2009, the executing court pursuant to the earlier order dated 27-3-2001 directed the issuance of warrant of possession, which was challenged in appeal by the petitioners. Said appeal was dismissed vide order dated 30-6-2009. The original impugned order of the executing court dated 10-6-2009 is a mere ministerial act of warrant 'of possession in pursuance of earlier order dated 27-3-2001. Furthermore, vide the proceedings recorded in the year 11-6-2008 the executing court appears to have gone beyond the scope of the jurisdiction by attempting to pass another decree for partition, and in fact, not only attempted to sit in appeal against the judgment and decree in execution but also the judgment of this Court, referred to above. By way of subsequent order dated 10-6-2009 the executing court merely realigned the proceedings so as to bring them in conformity with the judgment and decree in execution and the orders and judgment of this Court passed in this behalf.
7. The aforesaid makes it clear and obvious that judgment and decree for partition has been passed which has attained finality after challenges thrown thereto unsuccessfully right upto the honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan. The mode and manner of execution has been adjudicated upon both by the executing court as well as by this Court on more than one occasions in order to frustrate the execution, same arguments are being re-agitating again and again. In the above circumstances, it is clear and obvious that warrant of possession has been rightly issued by the executing court inasmuch as, the original order in this behalf dated 27-3-2001 had attained finality.
The matter has been reaffirmed by this Court by way of orders dated 14-2-2001, 17-10-2005 and 27- 6-2007. Challenge before the Supreme Court of Pakistan against the warrant of possession had been withdrawn. In this view of the matter, no exception can be taken. The grounds now being urged are alien to the lis. By issuing the warrant of possession, the executing court has acted in accordance with the judgment and decree as interpreted by the Court and has not transgressed its jurisdiction. The question of the stamping or otherwise of the said decree cannot be allowed to be raised at this stage as the same was not agitated in appeal nor has the copy of the said decree has been appended with this petition.
8 In the above circumstances this Court finds that the captioned Civil Revision is wholly misconceived and in fact amounts to the abuse of the process of the Courts. Hence, dismissed with costs.