This Revision Petition is directed against the concurrent findings of the two Courts below whereby Objection Petition of the petitioners was dismissed by the Civil Judge, Peshawar (Executing Court) vide judgment and order dated 10.3.2005 which was also upheld in Appeal by the Additional District Judge, Peshawar vide judgment and order dated 19.20.2005.
2. Mst. Iffat Sultan, the respondent approached the Rent Controller, Peshawar with an application under Section 13 of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 for eviction of the House No. 3105 situated in Kocha Bakhshi Ram, Karimpura Bazar, Peshawar against Umar Daraz Khan and others which was contested and ultimately accepted by the Rent Controller, Peshawar vide judgment and order dated 12.9.2001 and respondents were directed to handover vacant possession of the premises to the petitioner/respondent herein within forty days which was challenged in Appeal and the learned Additional District Judge-IV, Peshawar vide judgment and order dated 25.7.2003 concurred with its finding. Both the judgments and orders were called in question through Writ Petition No. 1306/2003 which was dismissed in limine on 29.10.2003.
3. The said judgment was put to execution wherein the petitioners filed objection petition and the same was summarily dismissed by the Executing Court through judgment and order dated 10.3.2005 which was also upheld in Appeal by the Additional District Judge-IV, Peshawar vide impugned judgment and order dated 19.10.2005.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioners that petitioners filed Objection Petition under Order XXI Rule 99 C.P.C. to the effect that Property No. CC959/3105/2974/3448/49-3581 measuring 32x35 square foot is owned by them through PTO No. 131304 dated 17.4.1961 and PTD Page No. 1373, 1389/268 dated 14.8.1962 and is in their occupation through tenants since long and the respondent herein has no concern with it.
Further contended that respondent brought a collusive ejectment application against fictitious tenants and obtained an ejectment order which is now put to execution to deprive the objectors of her ownership. The property of respondent in the shape of house is upon an area of 712 square foot wherein Ms. Khalida was living in it while the property of objectors is measuring 1746 square foot and there are cloth shops and both the properties are different entities.
5. During the ejectment proceedings in the Court of Rent Controller, the respondents therein seriously contested upto this Court and they never named the petitioners/objectors as their landlord and never raised the plea that area of subject-matter of, dispute is more than title of the applicant. The ejectment petition which was seriously contested and ultimately, ejectment order was passed as noted above which was upheld in Appeal and even this Court found no merit in the Writ Petition against the concurrent finding and the same was dismissed in limine but the objectors never applied for impleadment. The decree for ejectment passed in 2001 is still under execution and shall be implemented in letter and spirit on the spot.
6. It was observed in Ghulam Nabi vs. Additional District Judge Jhelum (2001 SCM R 683) that objector during execution proceedings questioned the ejectment order on the ground that he was not a party to the ejectment proceedings was rightly overruled by holding that objector had a full knowledge of the fact that his property was subject-matter of an ejectment petition but he never applied for becoming a party in those proceedings which was sufficient to hold that objector had no interest in those proceedings and afterthought/belated objection was held malafide with ulterior motive to prolong the trifling litigation so as to deprive the landlord from the suit of ejectment order and to prolong his agony and to prolong the occupation of tenant whose ejectment was ordered, thus the objection petition was rightly held to have been summarily dismissed.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his contention that objection is to be decided after recording pro and contra evidence relied upon certain reported judgments but those need not be discussed in detail being distinguishable on facts. There is not dispute that in case of a genuine objection regarding title over any interest, the Executing Court has got the powers under Order XXI Rules 100 to 103 C.P.C. to hold an enquiry but when on the face of record, the objection is C found based on malafide and to deprive the decree-holder from fruits of the decree, the Executing Court can competently/summarily dismissed the objection petition as observed in the aforesaid reported judgment.
8. In view of the above, this Revision Petition is found meritless which is hereby dismissed with costs.
However, the Executing Court is directed to execute the ejectment order in letter and spirit on the spot on priority basis as sufficient time has already lapsed to handover vacant possession of decretal premises to the respondent/landlord.