ORDER SALMAN HAIVGD, J. ---Rec ord of the present C.P. Would reveal that earlier in time a C.P.No.781 of 2009, was tiled by the petitioner against the same respondents, save Additional District Judge/Appellate Authority, Kamber, who is not arrayed in the present C.P.
2. Above C.P. No.781 of 2009, among other dates, came up for katcha peshi and hearing of Miscellaneous Application No.1749 of 2009, being stay application on 9-8-2009 on which- date it was dismissed for non-prosecution, inasmuch as that the learned counsel for the petitioner was called absent. Restoration application bearing M.A. No.6868 of 2010, was moved on 18-6-2010. While restoration application was still pending, present C.P. Was filed one about 28-12-2010.
3. It appears that after the Rent Case No.4 of 2005, (Old Rent Case No.2 of 2002), that was preferred by the respondents Nos.1 and 2 on the ground of personal bona fide need was allowed by the Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Kamber vide its judgment dated 30-10-2006 and the First Rent Appeal No.3 of 2006, preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Kamber, in terms of judgment dated 11-6-2009 and the respondents Nos.1 and 2 filed Execution Application No.1 of 2009, before the Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Kamber, on or about 29-9- 2009 and it having been allowed by such court vide Order dated 21-12-2010, directing the petitioner to hand over vacant possession of the shop, instant C.P emerged.
4. Despite initiation of execution proceedings by the respondents Nos.1 and 2 within a period of one year from the date of dismissal of F.R.A. No.3 of 2006, and the prayer for issuance of writ of possession without notice to the petitioner, notice was ordered. Upon service, the petitioner preferred Objections dated 6-12-2010 i.e. a date after the dismissal of C.P. No.781 of 2009 on 9-8- 2010. In the objections, only ground that was raised was that C.P. No.789 of 2009 was filed and stay Order dated 4-9-2009 was passed and after dismissal of such C.P. For non-prosecution, restoration application has been preferred and respondents Nos.1 and 2 also made appearance therein. The Objections did not impress the Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller/executing court and following Order dated 21-12-2009, was passed: "This is a [an] Execution Application No.1 of 2009, filed by the decree-holders Shirmati Sadori Bai and another on the basis of decree dated 30-10-2006, passed by this court. Judgment and decree of this court was challenged before the honourable District Judge by the appellant Ghulam Qadir and his appeal was dismissed and Order of this court for ejectment of the premises was maintained by the Honourable Additional District Judge, Kamber on 11th June, 2009, and 90-days time was allowed to vacate the premises. The judgment-debtor Ghulam Qadir challenged judgment of Honourable Appellate Court and filed C.P.No.781 of 2009, which was also dismissed by the Honourable High Court of Sindh, Larkana Bench on 9-8-2010, such true copy of order produced by the decree holder with his statement at Exh.5.
Notice was ordered; judgment-debtor appeared and filed his objections.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, in a old Rent Application No.2 of 2002, ejectment Order was passed by this court on 30-10-2006, then judgment of this court was maintained by the Honourable Appellate Court on 11-6-2009, thereafter, C.P. No.781 of 2009 was also dismissed on 9-8-2010, then nothing remained with the judgment-debtor and there is no other option but judgment debtor Ghulam Qadir is directed to vacate the premises without any delay. Hence, execution application allowed as prayed in respect of Shop bearing No.DS-46/2, Ward-A, Nasirabad Town and judgment-debtor is directed to hand over the vacate possession to the applicants/landlords. Let the Writ of attachment be issued."
5. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that order of handing over possession of shop dated 21-12-2010, passed by the Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller, Kamber, was not legal inasmuch as that no final Order in C.P. No.781 of 2009, was made by this court as restoration application moved therein is still pending. This aspect was not considered by the executing court. It was also argued that since the executing court did not give any time for vacating the shop in question, therefore the Order was void, and the petitioner having found no other efficacious remedy filed the present C.P.
6. When this petition was put up for katcha peshi on 28-12-2010, before this court, following Order was passed.
"Learned counsel for the petitioner states that against Order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller and maintained by the appellate court on the ground of personal bona fide use he had filed C.P.No.781 of 2009, which was dismissed by this court on 9-8-2010. Consequently, it is stated, he filed application for restoration on 9-8-2010, and that such application is still pending final disposal. The learned counsel for the applicant ought to have pressed whatever reliefs h. Wanted to in C.P.No.781 of 200' -nd not in new C.P. Let C.P. No.781 of 2009, be tagged with this C.P. Learned counsel finally requests for time. Adjointed to a date in office."
7. Today again when the learned counsel was confronted with the above situation and it was yet again enquired from him as to the scope of the present C.P. He had no answer, except that since C.P. No.781 of 2009, had been dismissed for non prosecution and to safeguard the interest of the petitioner, instant C.P. Was filed. No other argument was advanced or precedent cited.
8. I am afraid to accept above argument, raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner inasmuch as that primarily the object of special laws is to decide and dispose of cases expeditiously, enable the persons litigating under such special law to have redressal of their grievances on fast track basis. Rent proceedings under the provisions of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 are also to be given such a treatment i.e. Quick and expeditious disposal of the cases, concerning disputes between the landlords and tenants being a. Special law. Any party, in the present case, the tenant must not be allowed to lengthen the proceeding in any manner, particularly when it amounts to and aimed at to have decision in fragments which would be nothing but sheer abuse of constitutional jurisdiction of this court. It is clear from the narration of events of the case in hand that despite filing of Rent in the year 2002, by respondents Nos.1 and 2, till date they have not read the fruits thereof inasmuch as that the petitioner for one reason or the other has kept the respondents Nos.1 and 2 entangled in to litigation.
9. It may be noted that through the present C.P., the petitioner has sought to achieve a thing indirectly, to which he was not entitled to directly. Such manner of achieving things in an indirect manner should always be discouraged; particularly when such approach is to the detriment of the other party, who was found entitled to a thing through process of law.
10. Needless to mention that mere filing of proceeding before a higher forum, challenging the decision of the subordinate forum, in the present case C.P. Before this court would not operate as a halting factor of such decision, unless it is specifically halted/stayed by the court. In the present case, however even such was not the position inasmuch as that on the date of passing of Order dated 21-12-2010 by the executing court nothing was pending before this court. Restoration application by itself would not bring life in to dead proceedings, unless life is put in to it by the court in shape of restoration. It is an admitted position that on the day of passing of Order dated 21-12- 1010, nothing was pending before the higher forum and/or this court and/or no stay was operating in favour of the petitioner which could have prevented the executing court in passing the Order dated 21-12-2010.
11. The allegation that the executing court and not grant any time to the petitioner in vacating the shop in question, it would be suffice to observe that the executing court was only required to enforce the decree that was brought before it for such purpose. The executing court cannot go committed the decree by enlarging the tithe or curtailing it. One the time that was allowed in the decree expired. All that was required of by the executing court was to have the decree enforced.
This was done in the present case, when Order dated 21-12-2010 was passed. No exception to such Order could be taken and the same is therefore maintained.
12. For the foregoing reasons this C.P. Is found to be meritless, which it seems was aimed at to abuse the process of law, and therefore, the same is hereby dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000 (ten thousands) only.
13. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms along with listed applications.