ALI BAQAR NAJAFI, J. - Briefly the facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition are that the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents Ghulam Hussain filed an ejectment petition before the Rent Controller, Chakwal, who on 7.6.2001 allowed the same. The judgment-debtor namely.
Muhammad Bostan, etc., filed an appeal before the District Judge, Chakwal which was dismissed on 3.10.2001. Resultantly, said Ghulam Hussain filed an execution petition before the Rent Controller on 16.11.2001. In the execution proceedings one Asghari Begum and Ahmedi Begum filed objection petition on which issues were" framed and evidence was recorded. However, another objection petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed on 19.4v2004r whereby objection petition of the said ladies was also dismissed. The petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 3321 of 2006, but the same was withdrawn in order to i.e suit before the competent forum. Consequently, the petitioners filed a suit for declaration with possession through partition before the Civil Judge, Chakwal, who on 23.5.2007 granted stay order restraining the respondents from the property in dispute. This order was challenged before the Additional District Judge which was dismissed on 7.7.2009. Surprisingly, another appeal filed by the respondents against the same order dated 23.5.2007 whs allowed and the executing Court was directed to proceed strictly in accordance with law. However, executing Court issued warrant of possession against Raja Sana Ullah on 29.7.2009 which was challenged in civil revision before the Additional District Judge, who disposed of the same on 15.2.2010 with the observation that the petitioners may agitate their grievance by filing objection petition before the learned executing Court. The petitioners then filed an application under Section 47 read with Order XXI, Rule 99, CPC, wherein on 26.7.2011 the following issues were framed:--
(1) Whether pending civil suit is barred to issue warrant Dakhla?
(2) Whether the execution is in executable if so, on what grounds?
(3) Relief.
This order was challenged before the Additional District Judge who vide the impugned order dated 24.5.2012 allowed the revision petition and directed the Trial Court to proceed with the execution proceedings, hence this writ petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that orders passed by the Courts below are at variance; that order dated 26.7.2011 was rightly passed and revision petition could not have been filed as the same was not a decided case; that warrant of possession against the persons other than the judgment-debtor could not be issued; that order dated 23.5.2007 was confirmed, where after framing of issues was obvious requirement of law; the decree- holder has already sold of his substantial portion of share therefore, would not- be entitled to get possession of the same; that there are two different orders dated 7.7.2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge which are not only different but self-contradictory; lastly submits that if direction is issued to the executing Court to decide the objection petition on the basis of evidence then the petitioner is willing and ready to produce evidence on the issues already framed within stipulated period.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the petition by relying Muhammad Hanif Vs. Haji Abdul Wali Khan (1998 SCM R 659) and submits that there is no jurisdictional defect in the order; that in the earlier round of litigation issues have already been decided; that there is no dispute regarding description of the property; that since 2001 decree is yet to be executed; the writ petition was withdrawn on the wishes of the petitioner without any direction by the Court; that Section 47 read with Order XXI, Rule 99, CPC is applicable to the parties to the suit and not to the stranger; the said provisions are to be applied with.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Admittedly, the petitioners are claiming title over the property description of which is also a question raised in the objection petition. Right to object in the execution proceedings has been provided to protect right of individual against whom the decree is not to be executed. If the petitioner does not give reliable evidence die Court shall proceed forthwith while dismissing the objection petition. The eagerness of the respondent for the delay in conclusion of execution proceedings is justified. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the respondent is distinguishable as in that case there were concurrent orders against which writ petition was filed and there the petitioner had already appeared as witness in the earlier proceedings. Judgment of 1998 SCM R 659 relied upon by the learned counsel supported the case of the petitioner wherein the objection petition was ordered to be decided after framing of issues and recording of evidence. In this view of the matter, this writ petition is allowed, order impugned herein is set aside and the executing Court is directed to decide objection petition of the petitioner by recording evidence on the issues already framed therein, expeditiously and preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.