MUHMMAD KHALID MEHMOOD KHAN, J.---Briefly stated the facts of the case are that respondent No,2 and others filed a suit for possession of land measuring 26'x 8' bearing Khasra No,4994/1496 Min, situated in Akbar Street Garhi Shahu Lahore against the petitioner. The petitioner filed written statement but subsequently disappeared and was proceeded ex parte on 9-3-2002 and on 3-10- 2005 an ex parte decree was passed against him. The decree holder respondent No,2 filed an execution of the decree. The petitioner filed an objection petition before the learned executing Court claiming that the decree holder is wrongly trying to get the possession of her, house measuring 4 marlas 100 square feet bearing Khasra No,1297 situated at Akbar Street, Garhi Shahu Lahore, whereas the decree is against the property measuring 26' x 8' at bearing Khasra, No,4994/1296 Min, situated in Akbar Street, Garhi Shahu Lahore. The objection petition was resisted by the decree holder and ultimately the learned Executing Court vide order dated 24-10-1997 framed the following issues:-- "ISSUES Whether the property of objector is different from that of decreed property, if so, its effect? OP objector.
(2) Relief."
2. The respondent No,2 assailed the said order through a revision petition and the learned appeal Court vide order dated 14-3-2009 set aside the order dated 24-10-1997 hence, the present writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has no objection against the execution of decree passed against a specific property detail of which is given in the plaint and the judgment and decree dated 31-10-2005 but the respondent No,2 A is trying to get the possession of the petitioner's other property against which no decree has been passed. He submits that there is no decree against the property measuring 4 tnarlas 100 square feet falling in Khasra No,1297. He adds that it is the Executing Court who under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure alone has the jurisdiction to decide the objection petition.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent No,2 submits that this revision petition is not maintainable as the same has been filed against an interim order. He further submits that the Executing Court has no jurisdiction to entertain any objection petition nor the Executing Court can go behind the decree, the Executing Court is bound to execute the decree as it is. He adds that decree is against a property which is in possession of the petitioner and the objection petition has been filed only to frustrate the decree.
5. Heard 'record perused.
6. The judgment and decree dated 3-10-2005 shows that a decree for possession of land measuring 2 marlas 130 square feet falling in Khasra No,4994/9436 Min, Akbar Street Garhi Shahu Lahore was passed against the petitioner. The objection petition filed by the petitioner shows that he is not objecting execution of the decree but is claiming that the respondent No,2 under the garb of a decree is trying to dispossess her from her property measuring 4 marlas 100 square feet falling in Khasra No,1297, situated in Akbar Street Garhi Shahu Lahore as is evident from copy of PT-I which is admittedly a house. The learned trial Court after hearing the parties and perusing the record came to the conclusion that the objections raised by the petitioner cannot be decided without recording the evidence and as such framed issue on the controversy. between the parties. It is an established principle of law that Executing Court cannot go behind the decree, but under section 47, C.P.C. the Executing Court alone has the jurisdiction to resolve the controversy in connection with the execution of a decree. In the present case no doubt the petitioner is a judgment-debtor but the property subject-matter of the decree prima facie is different from the property claimed by the petitioner. The appeal Court has failed to appreciate that there is no decree against the property claimed by the petitioner. Further the property claimed by the petitioner is a constructed house, whereas the decree in favour of respondent No,2 is against an open land falling in different Khasra numbers and measurement of which is 28 x 8 sq.ft.
7. In view of above, I am of the opinion that order of learned Executing Court was perfectly in accordance with law and as such I hereby set aside the impugned order dated 14-3-2009 and remand the case to the learned Executing Court to decide the objection petition within 3 months from the date of this order. There is no order as to costs.