AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J. --- Through this civil revision the petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.2.2011 whereby an appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the order dated 13.4.2010 whereby an objection petition filed by the petitioner/judgment-debtor was also dismissed.
2. The facts of this case in detail are mentioned in both the orders passed by the learned Courts below therefore, need not be reproduced here once again. However, the only relevant facts are that a suit for preemption filed by the respondents/decree-holders was decreed on 7.7.1975 whereas in appeal vide judgment and decree dated 7.3.1976 the suit was dismissed and the revision petition filed by the respondents/plaintiffs was accepted on 4.7.2001 by this Court; the petitioner/judgment debtor went to the august Supreme Court of Pakistan where the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed on 2.5.2005; an application for execution of the pre-emption decree was filed on 23.12.2008 wherein the objection of the petitioner was that it is time-barred, therefore, it be dismissed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the execution petition has not been filed within the prescribed period of limitation, therefore, it be dismissed.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record.
5. In paragraph No. 6 of the order passed by the executing Court, it is mentioned that vide order dated 31.3.2009 the executing Court found that the execution petition has been filed within period of limitation whereas the judgment-debtors Nos. 1, 3 and 4 were present and the petitioner/judgment-debtor No. 5 refused to receive the notice. Therefore, without challenging the order dated 31.3.2009 the objection with regard to limitation was not available to the petitioner.
There are concurrent findings of facts of two Courts below.
6. 1 am of the considered view that in a suit for pre-emption in accordance with Order XX, Rule 14 of the CPC the title of the plaintiff/decree-holder deems to have accrued from the date of payment of the decretal amount in this regard the executing Court has observed that the decretal amount has been paid in the Court in accordance with the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, therefore, when title of suit property accrued to the plaintiff/decree-holder on the date of payment of decretal amount, then, the execution petition remains formal only in a pre-emption suit, therefore, both the Courts below have committed no illegality while dismissing the objection petition as well as appeal filed by the petitioner who is one of the judgment -debtors.
7. In this view of the matter no case for interference by this Court has been made out by learned counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, this revision petition having no merits is dismissed in limine.
Civil revision .