' CH. MUHAMMAD MASOOD JAHANGIR, J.---Brief facts of the case are that respondent No, 1/plaintiff had instituted a suit for possession through specific performance of agreement and permanent injunction in the learned trial/Civil Court against respondent No,2 and one Tahir Mehmood son of Feroze Din to the effect that they had entered into an agreement to sell regarding the suit property with respondent No,1 for a consideration of Rs,93,00,000/- out of which Rs,5 lac were received by them from the plaintiff-respondent No,1 as earnest money. The respondent No,1-plaintiff averred in the plaint that on account of mala fide, the defendants had refused to execute the sale deed in his favour while the respondent No,1/plaintiff was ready to perform his part of performance. The suit was contested by the respondent-defendant No,2 but defendant No,1 Tahir Mahmood during trial of the case affected compromise with the plaintiff-respondent and the suit was partly decreed to his extent.
2. The learned trial Court framed the following issues out of the divergent pleadings of the parties:- -
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for possessions through specific performance of the agreement to sell as prayed for? OPP
(2) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file this suit? OPD
(3) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is false, frivolous and is liable to be dismissed? OPD
(4) Relief.
3. Both the parties produced their respective evidence and the learned trial court vide its judgment and decree dated 26-1-2011 decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Feeling dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 26-1-2011 passed by the learned Civil Judged, the respondent No,2 preferred an appeal before this Court which also met the same fate on 31-1-2013. The petitioner Falak Sher filed an application under 12(2) of C.P.C. For setting aside the judgments and decrees dated 26-1-2011 and 31-1-2013 in which the petitioner was directed to approach the proper forum. The respondent No, 1/plaintiff filed execution petition against respondent No,2 before the learned Executing Court/trial Court while the petitioner filed objection petition in the said execution petition. The learned Executing Court vide order dated 25-7-2013 dismissed the objection petition. Then the petitioner filed a second objection petition which too has been dismissed by the learned Executing Court vide order dated 30-10-2013, hence this Civil Revision.
4 The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the impugned order is against law and facts as the first objection, petition was dismissed without framing the issues and no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner for the production of his evidence to prove his version. He has further argued that the learned lower court has not applied its judicial mind and knocked out the petitioner on technical grounds through the impugned order, which is liable to be set aside.
5. Arguments heard and record appended with this petition also perused.
6. The perusal of the record reveals that the suit for specific performance filed by respondent No,1 was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 26-1-2011 and the appeal filed against the judgment and decree by the judgment debtor was also dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 31-1- 2013. The decree holder filed execution petition before the learned Executing Court. The petitioner preferred an objection petition before the said learned Executing Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 25-7-2013. The said order having not been challenged before any appellate forum, has attained the finality and the second objection petition on the same grounds filed by the petitioner before the learned Executing Court was not maintainable and has rightly been dismissed vide impugned order dated 30-10-2013. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the earlier objection petition was dismissed by the learned Executing Court without framing of issues and recording of evidence, therefore, the said order dated 25-7-2013 was not a bar in filing the second objection petition before the learned Executing Court is misconceived as the said order has attained finality. The filing of second objection petition on the similar grounds by the same person/petitioner is nothing, but to create hindrance in the way of execution proceedings regarding the judgment and decree dated 26-1-2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge, which has also attained finality and its execution cannot be stopped by filing repeated objection petitions on behalf of the petitioner. It is the mandate of Order XXI, Rule 99, C.P.C. That only the objections or resistance, if claimed in good faith can be considered, but in the present case the learned Executing Court has rightly observed that the series of objection petitions filed by the petitioner is, based on oblique motive and the learned Executing Court has rightly dismissed the same without framing of issues or recording of the evidence. The decree holder had to face the proceedings for years and in different courts, right up to this Court as well the august Supreme Court. If the Executing Court, is allowed to dispose of the objections in terms of issues framed by it in each and every case, then the entire jurisdiction of the Court, which passed the original decree, would be subverted and fresh endless proceeding in the nature of review or rehearing will start and that is not the mandate of law. The petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands entitling him to discretionary relief under the revisional jurisdiction. Resultantly, the instant Civil Revision having no force is dismissed in limine.
7. Before parting with the order, this court is constrained to observe that Execution is process for enforcement of decree or in order to enable the decree-holder to derive the benefits from the judgment and the courts have inherent powers to carry out their orders, but it is a drawback to attain judgment is easier than to have its execution. It is a fact that the decree is to be executed in the manner prescribed by the provisions of Order XXI read with section 47, C.P.C., which provide a complete procedure. The scheme and the mandate behind Order XXI, C.P.C. Is to afford speedy relief to the parties in matters arising out of execution of a decree, but the said wisdom of draftsmen of the legislature is not abided by rather different hurdles and obstacles are created during the execution proceedings. The Executing Courts should have to be vigilant and should adopt the measures as given in rule 23-A of the said Order to block the gateway of the frivolous litigation. It is, therefore, directed that the execution proceedings should be carried out on expeditious basis arid if found necessary, in the cases of real hardship, even on day to day basis.
This court is vigilant that there is a heavy load of litigation on the shoulders of the subordinate courts and they are also working day and night for the dispensation and administration of justice, but their efforts and hardworking will be more appreciated when the orders/judgments and decrees passed by them have borne fruit rather the same are hanging unnecessarily without any compliance, which will definitely lessen the confidence Hof the people in the process of courts. The Registrar of this Court shall issue necessary directions to the Judicial Officers of the subordinate court in this regard.