1. ' This is a Miscellaneous Appeal from the order passed by with A. D. J. On the application moved by the appellant under Order XXI, rule 58, C. P. C. Objecting to the attachment of office furniture of the appellant and stating that he is not reasonable to satisfy the decree of Rs, 15,000, plus cost with interest in Suit No, 487/67 passed by Vlth A. D. J., Karachi on 30th September, 1970, against Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Karachi and 3 others.
2. ' The relevant facts are that the appellant claims to be a different person from the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Karachi against whom and the Government of Sind, decree, in Suit No, 487/67 had been passed. On 31-1-1972, the respondent had filed execution application against the Registrar of Cooperative Societies of which due notice was served upon the present appellant on 29-3-1972. It appears that on 8-8-1973 the respondent had tiled an application for reporting the matter to the Provincial Government under section 82, C. P. C. That the decree in Suit No, 487/67 had not been satisfied. The same notice appears to have been issued to the Government of Sind, Thereafter on 10th of May, 1974, appellant took two months time from executing Court for satisfaction of decree. Then again on 12-7-1974 and 26-9-1974 the appellant took further time of 2 months each. Lastly on 13-12-1974 the appellant again requested for 2 months' time for satisfying the decree and did not press his application under Order XXI, rules 26 and 29, C. P. C. Which were consequently dismissed by the order of VIth A. D. J. Dated 13-12-1974 and the appellant directed to satisfy the decree within 2 months.
3. ' Without satisfying that decree the appellant filed a Suit No, 358/75 before the Vth Senior Civil Judge, Karachi, on 14-2-1975 for declaration and injunction in respect of decree in Suit No, 487/67 and in para. 3 of that suit, the appellant stated that he had paid Rs, 7,000, uptill 20th December, 1965, on behalf of the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Lahore, to the present respondent in respect of the rent of the same premises for which the respondent had later on filed Suit No, 487/67. The appellant had prayed for declaring decree in Suit No, 487/67 for Rs, 20,082.50, with cost and interest in favour of defendant as being illegal, void and inoperative. However. The respondent filed an application under Order VII, rule 11, C. P. C. For rejection of the plaint in Suit No, 358/75 and after hearing the arguments of parties the same was allowed on 21-12-1976 by the learned Civil Judge and by a detailed order the plaint was rejected.
4. ' It may also be noted that the Government of Sind through Secretary Labour and Cooperative Department and the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Hyderabad filed Petition No, D-1590 of 1978, in the High Court of Sind for an order that proceedings in Suit No, 487/67 were illegal and void etc. The same was dismissed in limine on 30th November, 1978, after hearing the learned Advocate- General. The High Court noted that no appeal was filed nor any proceedings were taken to challenge the decree. The High Court had also noted in their order that an order has been passed by the Executing Court for attachment of the movable property of the petitioner viz the Registrar, Cooperative Societies. This reference by the High Court was in respect of the attachment made to the property of the office of the present appellant which was treated by the Registrar in that petition to be an attachment of his office. I also found that in that order of dismissal of the petition the High Court has noted a statement made by the learned Advocate-General that a notice as required under section 82 of C. P. C. Had also been given to the Government but the decree has not been satisfied. The High Court dismissed the petition in the following terms:- "We are not inclined to admit this petition because the execution proceedings arise out of a regular suit and the decree that was passed as early as 1979, was not challenged by the petitioners. It seems that the petitioners have slept over their rights and are not entitled to remedy under Article 199 of the Constitution. Additionally we may state that the learned Advocate-General has informed us that a notice as required by the section 82 of the Civil Procedure Code has also been given but the decree remains unsatisfied. There is a further reason for dealing the relief in this case because the matter relates to purely civil and contractual rights and obligations which should in all propriety form the basis of proceedings either by way of objections to execution or appeal or review or revision application."
5. ' Eventually on 3rd January, 1979, the objections of the appellant were finally dismissed by the VI A.
6. D. J., Karachi on the ground that the Deputy Registrar has all along been contesting the suit and execution on behalf of defendant No, 4 viz. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Karachi, and had given many undertakings that he will arrange the payment of the decretal amount. The A. D. J. Took the view that the Government is party to the suit and the present appellant is directly under the control of the judgment-debtor and therefore, directed the attachment of the attachable property of the office of the Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies, Karachi.
7. ' Mr. Azhar Siddiqui, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was an entirely different officer from the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies, Karachi or Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Hyderabad or even from the Secretary Cooperative Department Government of Sind and since the appellant as Deputy Registrar was not a party to the suit, therefore, his office, and moveable property cannot be attached. I am not satisfied that this is a corrects submission. The appellant is a Subordinate Officer of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Hyderabad and of the Department of Cooperation Government of Sind and since the decree was passed against the Government Sind as well as the Registrar of Cooperative Societies and therefore obviously it can be executed by attachment of furniture of any of the attached Departments of those offices and admittedly this appellant is a direct Sub-ordinate Officer of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Hyderabad and is working in the attached Department under administrative control of the Government of Sind and, therefore, the position taken by the appellant is untenable. Moreover, the stand taken by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies in the petition filed by them was that the attachment of the office furniture of the Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies, Karachi, was treated as the attachment of the movables of the office of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Hyderabad. Consequently, this objection to the execution fails. Moreover, the appellant having received notice of the execution application from 8-8-1973 and having contested the same and having obtained 4 adjournments in 1974, for the purpose of satisfaction of the decree he is now estopped from the challenging his liabilities in respect of the same. Even otherwise, the appellant is raising too technical an objection and it is an unfair attitude on the part of the Government and its Subordinate Offices to resist the execution of the decree which had been passed against them in 1970, and against which they had not filed any appeal or revision and in respect of which their suit and writ petition have also been dismissed.
8. ' Mr. Azhar Siddiqui also submitted that notice under section 82, C. P. C. Had not been issued to the Government for non-satisfaction of the decree. Mr. Wakil Ahmed Qidwai however, made a statement at the Bar that such notice had been issued to the Government by VIth A. D. J. In 1973.
9. The statement of Mr. Vakil Ahmed is sufficiently supported by statement of the learned Advocate- General before the High Court in Petition No, 1590/78 to the effect that notice as required by section 82 of the C. P. C. Has also been given. This petition is, therefore, without any force.
10. Mr. Vakil Ahmed Qidwai has also raised objection to the maintainability of this appeal and has shown me that Order XLIII, C. P. C. Does not provide for any appeal against an order under rule 58 of Order XXI of C. P. C. This submission is correct and the appeal is incompetent.
11. ' Consequently, this appeal is without any merit and is hereby dismissed. However at the request of counsel for the appellant, I would allow the appellant one month time within which the appellant is to deposit the balance of the decretal amount with costs and interest in this Court which can be withdrawn by the respondent. The execution of the decree in suit No, 487/67 will therefore not issue for one month from today. This appeal thus stands dismissed.