ALI BAQAR NAJAFI, J. --- Through this Constitutional Petition, the petitioner seeks setting aside of the orders dated 19.07.2011 and 05.04.2011 passed by respondents No. 1&2 respectively, whereby the objection petition filed by the petitioner during the execution proceedings was dismissed.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition are that respondents No. 3&4 filed a suit for recovery of dower and maintenance allowance for herself as well as for minor son of Muhammad Fayyaz, which was decreed to the extent of Rs. 2,000/- for respondent No. 3 and Rs. 3,000/- for respondent No. 4. An appeal was preferred in which maintenance of respondent No. 3 was denied whereas to the extent of respondent No. 4 maintenance was reduced to Rs. 2000/- per month.
However, in Writ Petition No. 3686 of 2009 the maintenance granted to respondent No. 4 was further reduced to Rs. 1500/- per month vide order dated 09.06.2010. Meanwhile, execution petition was filed on 30.06.2009 in which the petitioner filed an objection petition on 18.10.2010 which was dismissed on 05.04.2011, whereafter appeal was also dismissed on 19.07.2011.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that respondent No. 3 has received dower amount for which an affidavit was executed by her on 12.09.2009; that the petitioner is ready to deposit Rs.
50,000/- in favour of respondent No. 4 as per order; that executing Court was required to record evidence as plea of the petitioner that dower amount has already been paid, hence prays for setting aside of both orders.
4. Conversely, learned counsel for respondents No. 3&4 submits that the learned Courts below have rightly passed both the orders and the findings given are based on legal ground; that under Article 174 of the Limitation Act a period of 90 days is provided and the objection petition has been filed at belated stage.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record.
6. A perusal of the record reveals that in the application dated 18.10.2010 the petitioner has raised simple objection that on account of compromise arrived at between the parties an Iqrarnama dated 30.08.2009 was executed, whereby father of the decree-holder has received Rs. 50,000/- as full and final payment and as such the execution proceedings are not maintainable. The plea was denied by the respondents in their written reply dated 04.11.2010, whereafter the learned Executing Court should have record evidence after framing of issue as to whether the decree has already been satisfied on account of compromise. Record further reveals that an affidavit of respondent No. 3, namely, Zarina Gulshan stating therein that she has statedly admitted that the decree has been satisfied as house comprises of two rooms has been given to her.
7. For the foregoing reasons, I allow this writ petition , set aside the order passed by the executing Court and remand the case to the executing Court, who is directed to decide the objection petition after framing of necessary issue and recording of evidence.. .