' MALIK MANZOOR HUSSAIN, J.---This appeal has been preferred against judgment and decree dated 5-7-2013, passed by learned Addl: District Judge-II/Executing Court, Mardan whereby the Execution Petition of the appellant was dismissed.
2. Briefly stated, the facts as emerged from contents of appeal are that vide Award No,274 dated 22-11-2000, the Government of KPK, through Collector Mardan, acquired the land of appellant for remodeling of "Hissra Drain" situated in Revenue Estate Ahmad Abad, Takht Bhai, District Mardan.
Feeling aggrieved from the compensation awarded, the appellant filed Reference Petition which was decided by the Referee Court, Mardan vide judgment and decree dated 26-2-2008 Wand the amount of compensation was enhanced to Rs,1500/- per marla from Rs,794/52 as was assessed by Collector in Award. Dissatisfied from the same, both the parties assailed the same through filing of R.F.As. Before this Court, which were disposed of through single judgment dated 15-3-2010, passed in R.F.A. No,67 of 2008, by enhancing the compensation amount to Rs,2147/- per marla along with solitium charges and 6% interest over the enhanced amount from the date of possession. Later on the appellants filed execution petition in the Executing Coat, which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 5-7-2013, hence the instant Regular First Appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Executing Court did not take into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and decide the same in slipshod manner; that the judgment of learned Executing Court on the point that the petition was time barred was not correct because under section 48 C.P.C., the Court had got ample powers to execute the decree even beyond the limitation, therefore, the question of limitation cannot be taken as hurdle in the way of appellants to receive the market rate of the acquired property determined by the final Court of appeal.
4. Conversely, learned counsel, for respondents by supporting the judgment passed 'by learned Executing Court, contended that the judgment and decree was passed by Referee Court on 26-2- 2008 whereas judgment of this Court was of dated 15-3-2010 and the, appellants were supposed to file execution petition within three years which they failed thus the execution petition filed by the appellants was badly time barred which had rightly been dismissed by the learned Executing Court through impugned judgment, which needs no interference by this Court.
' Arguments heard, record perused.
5. It is well settled law that Interpretation of procedural law in a manner, it tends to obstruct the course of justice, has to be avoided as far as possible. In the case of "Province of Punjab v. Abdul Majeed" 1997 SCM R 1692, it was held by the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan that all procedural laws are subservient to the cause of justice, and therefore, such laws neither limit nor control the power of the Court to pass an order or decree which is necessary to do full justice in the facts and circumstances of the case.
6. In the case in hand the amount of compensation finally determined by this Court was Rs,2147/- per marla and was being paid to the other co-owners/objectors. As the Award was amended by this Court in appeal, so all the affectees of Award were entitled to the amount fixed for the Award.
The honourable apex Court has gone to the extent that even non-appealing parties or non- objecting land owner would be entitled to the relief/ benefit accruing from the determination. In the case of "Saddaqat Ali Khan v. Collector Land Acquisition and others" PLD 2010 SC 878, it was held by the full Bench of apex Court that once a judicial determination has been made and if such a determination covers not only the ones litigating before the Courts but some others also, then the dictates of justice would command that the benefit accruing from such a determination should not be restricted only to the litigating parties but should be extended even to those who had not indulged in litigation. Such would not only ensure justice for all but would also have the affect of eliminating unnecessary litigation.
7. Once it was finally determined by this Court that the land owners/affectees were entitled to compensation of Rs,2147/- per marla, the learned Executing Court was bound to give the benefit of judgment of this Court to the land owners who approached the Executing Court on the basis of same. The ultimate goal sought to be achieved was thus to do complete justice between the parties and to ensure that the rights were delivered to those to whom they belonged and no hurdles were ever considered strong enough to detract the Courts from reaching the said end.
8. The appellants were not party to appeal bearing No,67/2008 decided on 15-3-2010 as the same was filed by other affectees. When the appellants got knowledge of the same they immediately applied for the attested copies and after procuring the same filed the execution petition, which after excluding the period consumed was within the period prescribed under section 48 of C.P.C.
Even otherwise the execution of co-objectors remained pending for considerable time, thus the findings of learned Executing Court was not only against law but against the principle of natural justice.
' In view of what has been observed above, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order of learned Executing Court is set aside. 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.