JUDGMENT SH. AZMAT SAEED, J.---E.F.A. 67 of 2011 filed by appellant Javed Iqbal calls in question the legality or order dated 21-1-2011 of the Insurance Tribunal Lahore.
2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the lis at hand are that the appellant tiled application before the Insurance Tribunal for the recovery of policy proceeds and liquidated damages with reference to two insurance policies issued by the respondents in respect of the were of the appellant. The aforesaid application was accepted by the Insurance Tribunal vide order dated 18-11-2008. Being aggrieved, the respondents filed R.F.A. No. 447 of 2008 which was dismissed by this Court by means of order dated 16-9-2010. The said R.F.A. Was accompanied by an application for the grant of interim relief/stay of execution and this Court in terms of order dated 17-12-2008 stayed the execution proceedings subject to the deposit of decretal amount with the executing court. And after dismissal of R.F.A. By this Court, execution proceedings commenced, during the course whereof, the amount deposited by respondents with the executing court as a condition for stay of execution, could not be accounted for, as allegedly the same had been misappropriated by the staff entrusted therewith. This matter was brought to the notice of the executing court by the respondents whereupon the execution petition tiled by the appellant was disposed of holding that the decree had been satisfied. It is the said order which is being assailed through the captioned R.F.A.
3: We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and minutely examined the record.
Respondents had challenged the aforesaid decree unsuccessfully before this Court and R.F.A. No. 447 of 2008 had already been dismissed whereafter the matter attained finality, hence the decree has to be executed. Respondents claim to have deposited the money with the executing court as a condition for stay of execution during pendency of the appeal before this Court and the said money has not been accounted for. It is yet to be determined whether in fact the amount was deposited by the respondents or not. However, there can be no escape from the fact that the appellant had no connection or responsibility with regard to the deposit and receipt of the said amount, therefore the appellant cannot be deprived of the fruits of the decree in his favour merely because the amount could not accounted for. There is no legal basis for saddling the appellant with the responsibility for the amount in question, therefore, no ground existed for dismissal of the execution petition Resultantly, this petition must succeed and is allowed with direction that decree passed in favour of the appellant shall be executed in accordance with law till its satisfaction.
Needless to and that if and when the disputed amount is accounted for, respondents may be permitted to withdraw it.
4. Appeal accepted in terms enumerated ibid.