' MALIK MANZOOR HUSSAIN, J.---This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 9-7-2013 passed by the learned Appellate Court, Swabi whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed and the order passed by the learned Executing Court, in the objection petition was maintained.
2. This case has chequered history. The mother of respondents No.1 to 3 filed a suit for partition and separation of her share and preliminary decree was passed in her favour vide judgment dated 5- 4-1968. The same was challenged through appeals and revision, however, final decree was passed vide judgment dated 7-11-1989. The petitioner filed objection petition in the year 1996, which was dismissed and through Civil Revision No.569 of 2008, the matter was remanded by this Court to the learned executing Court for decision afresh in the light of revenue record. After remand, the objection petition was again rejected through order dated 24-7-2012 and feeling dissatisfied, the petitioners filed an appeal, which has been dismissed through impugned order dated 9-7-2013.
3. There is no controversy between the parties regarding the share of respondents Nos.1 to 3. The final decree passed in the year 1989 and the same cannot be satisfied or has achieved its object due to unnecessary filing of objection petition and the litigation initiated by the petitioners. The perusal of record reveals that the learned Executing Court strictly proceeded with the matter in accordance with the directives passed by this Court vide judgment dated 2-5-2011 and after remand, recorded the statement of 'Patwari Halqa' and Bailiff of the Court. The preliminary decree was passed in the year 1968 and the same could not be concluded even after passing of more than 4 decades. The respondent/ decree-holder has been involved in a prolong unnecessary litigation on one pretext or other. The respondents/decree-holders have been dragged into protracted litigation without any reason. The claim of the petitioners seems to be for ulterior consideration. The learned executing Court in the light of evidence on record, deputed the 'Patwari Halqa' alongwith Bailiff of the Court to hand over possession to the decree-holder of the vacant sight of the land measuring 6 kanals, 11 marlas and this was done after considering the objections taken by the present petitioners regarding their share. No infirmity or irregularity has been found in the impugned orders of both the Courts below.
4. There has to be an end to the litigation at some stage to rest all concerned in peace, but here are the petitioners who continues to abuse and misuse the process of the Court with impunity. The respondent/decree-holder had been drawn into unnecessary litigation, which was nothing but a source of torture to them. They have no case on merits, thus, deserve no leniency and are liable' to burden with cost due to their conduct, for filing frivolous petition. This would on one hand minimize the agonies of the decree-holders and also the black log crises for the Courts and on the other hand would reduce the unnecessary litigation, which has assumed monster status.
' Resultantly, in view of what has been observed above, this Revision Petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.15,000, which shall be paid by the petitioners to the respondent/decree-holder. The executing Court is directed to immediately finalize the proceedings and report the same to the Additional Registrar (Judicial) of this Court.