' AMIR HANI MUSLIM, J.---This Appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment dated 15-10-2012, whereby the Writ Petition filed by the respondents has been allowed and the case was remanded to the Executing Court to decide the objection Petition expeditiously.
2. The material facts for the decision of this Appeal are that on 16-3-2000 the Predecessor-in- Interest of the appellants filed ejectment Petition against the respondents Nos.30 and 31 before the Rent Controller, Chakwal, for their eviction from House No.2058-B-1, on account of default in payment of rent and for use of his sons. The respondents Nos.30 and 31 resisted the ejectment by filing written statement, denying relationship of landlord and tenant. The Rent Controller framed various issues including the issue "whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties" and recorded evidence of the parties. By order dated 7-6-2001, the Rent Controller decided this issue in favour of the appellants, ordered eviction of the respondents Nos.30 and 31 and directed them to deliver possession of the house till 31-7-2001. Respondents Nos. 30 and 31 filed Appeal before the District Judge Chakwal, which was also dismissed on 3-10-2001 and the respondents Nos.30 and 31 were directed to hand over vacant possession of the house to the appellants within one month. This judgment of the learned District Judge attained finality as the respondents Nos.30 and 31 did not challenge the same before any forum.
3. The appellants filed execution Petition and during pendency of the said Petition, on 15-2-2002, one Mst. Asghari Begum daughter of Ahmedi Begum filed objection Petition claiming herself to be the owner of the house and the respondents Nos.30 and 31 as her tenants. She further pleaded that the Predecessor-in-interest of the appellants was a purchaser only to the extent of one kanal of land from her mother in relation to which the judgment of the learned Lahore High Court dated 7- 7-1979 passed in R.S.A. No.458 of 1976, attained finality. The respondents Nos.1 - 29-A Ilyas Ahmed and others also filed objection Petition pleading therein that the rented premises belongs to the applicants which after the death of Mst. Ahmedi Begum devolved upon them. It was further pleaded that the rented premises were rented out to the Predecessor-in-interest of the respondents Nos.30 and 31 namely Ilyas Ahmed and others in the year 1969. The appellants resisted the objection Petitions by filing written statements whereupon the Rent Controller framed following issues:--
(1) Whether sufficient reasons exist to accept both the objection petitions filed by Ilyas Ahmad and Mst. Asghari Begum etc? OP Objectors.
(2) Whether both the objection petitions are not maintainable in their present form? OP Decree holder Ghulam Hussain.
(3) Order ' After recording of the evidence of parties, the Executing Court consolidated these objection Petitions and by order dated 19-4-2004 dismissed the same being not maintainable. This order of the Executing Court was challenged in Appeal before the District Judge Chakwal by respondents Nos.1 - 29-A Ilyas Ahmed and others which was dismissed by judgment dated 20-11-2006, holding that the objection Petition filed by Ilyas Ahmed and others was not tenable under the law. Mst.
Asghari Begum also filed Appeal before the District Judge against order dated 19-4-2004 which was dismissed as withdrawn on 16-10-2006. Thereafter the Executing Court issued warrants of possession upon which respondents Nos.1 - 29-A Ilyas Ahmed and others, filed two Miscellaneous Applications under section 151, C.P.C. Against the said warrants. These Applications were also dismissed with costs by the Executing Court on 22-12-2006, and the case was adjourned for further proceedings.
4. The respondents Nos.1-29A Ilyas Ahmed and others, filed Writ Petition No.3321 of 2006; before the learned Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi. Bench against the judgment dated 20-11-2006 of the District Judge, Chakwal. This writ Petition, without notice to the appellants, was disposed of as not pressed on 21-12-2006 in the following terms:-- "Learned Counsel for petitioner does not press this writ petition seeks its withdrawal provided a direction is issued to the learned trial court that on filing of suit for partition by the petitioner challenging the ejectment order passed by the learned Rent Controller and the alienation of the property made by the respondent No.1 after filing the objection petition by the petitioner, the same would be decided on the basis of evidence produced by the parties without being influenced with the findings recorded by the learned Rent Controller in the ejectment order, court of Appeal. Order passed by the Executing Court regarding the objection petition and order on Appeal dismissing the objection petition. Order accordingly."
5. On 26-1-2007, respondents Nos.1-29A Ilyas Ahmed and others,--i filed a civil suit before the Civil Court for declaration of their title to the property in dispute, its partition and restraining the appellants to get any order of eviction from the Rent Controller. On 23-7-2005 the civil Court passed a restraining order holding that "As possession of suit land is admittedly not with respondent No.1 hence balance of convenience also lies in favour of the petitioners. So Petition for interim injunction stands accepted to the extent that till petitioners shall not be dispossessed from any portion of suit land till pendency of in hand suit or till the time provided by law, which ever is earlier. However this order shall not safeguard the possession of respondents Nos.2 and 3 on any portion of suit land and to that extent the petition stands rejected". The appellants challenged this order before the District Judge, Chakwal. During pendency of the Aptleal before the District Judge, the appellants approached the Rent Controller for warrants of possession against the respondents Nos.30 and 31 and on 19-9-2007 the Executing. Court held that it would be proper to wait for the orders of the District Judge, Chakwal. The learned Additional District Judge, maintained order dated 23-7-2005 through its judgment dated 7-7-2009.
6. The appellants challenged the order dated 19-9-2007 of the Rent Controller, before the District Judge Chakwal. By order dated 7-7-2009, the Executing Court was directed to continue the proceedings. On 29-7-2009 the Executing Court issued warrants of possession against Raja Sanaullah, against which Raja Sanaullah filed Civil Revision before the District Judge, Chakwal, which was disposed of with the observation that he may file objections in the execution proceedings. Once again the respondents Nos.1-29A Ilyas Ahmed and others through said Raja Sanaullah filed objections before the Executing Court under Order XLI and XXI, Rule 99, C.P.C. The appellants contested the objection Petition by filing written statement. On 26-7-2011, the Executing Court struck the following issues and adjourned the execution sine die till the decision of the objections:-
(1) Whether pending civil suit is barred to issue warrant Dakhal? OP (objectors)
(2) Whether the execution is in-executable if, so on what grounds?
(3) Relief.
' This order of the Executing Court was challenged by the respondents Nos.1-29A Ilyas Ahmed and others in Civil Revision before the Additional District Judge, Chakwal, which revision was allowed, the objection Petition of the respondents Nos. 1 - 29A Ilyas and others under Order XLI and XXI, Rule 99, C.P.C. Was dismissed, order dated 26-7-2011 was set aside and the Executing Court was directed to proceed in accordance with law. The respondents Nos.1-29A Ilyas Ahmed and others filed Writ Petition No.1803 of 2012 before the Lahore High Court Rawalpindi Bench challenging the order dated 24-5-2012 passed by the learned Additional District Judge Chakwal. By the impugned judgment dated 15-10-2012, the Writ Petition was allowed and the Executing Court was directed to decide the objection Petition of the respondents 1-29A Ilyas and others, after recording evidence on the issues already framed expeditiously, preferably within two months. The appellants challenged the judgment before this Court by filing Civil Petition No.1759 of 2012 when on 15-1-2013 this Court granted leave to Appeal against the impugned order.
7. The learned Counsel for the appellants has contended that the learned High Court has overlooked the chequered history of the proceedings and has remanded the matter to the Executing Court to decide the Objection Petition of the respondent by recording evidence on issues which were already decided by the Courts in the earlier round against the respondents up to the High Court. The learned Counsel has submitted that the respondents, on one or the other pretext, are lingering on the proceedings changing their stance before the Courts below, as a result of which the ejectment order passed on 7-6-2001 in favour of the appellants has not been given effect by the Executing Court/Senior Civil Judge and the appellants are deprived of their right to possession on account of the collateral proceedings, initiated by the respondents and or other persons like Raja Sanaullah, who claims himself to be the Attorney of the some of the respondents and vendee by virtue of some sale transaction to defeat the ejectment order, which has attained finality.
8. As against this, the learned Counsel for the respondents has contended that Raja Sanaullah is in possession of the premises in question. According to him, Raja Sanaullah is holding possession as Attorney of the respondents and now as owner pursuant to a sale agreement entered into with the successors of Ahmedi Begum. He claims that since the ejectment order has been passed against the respondents, in which Raja Sanaullah was not a party, therefore, it would not bind him. He next contended that Mst. Ahmedi Begum was the original owner, who rented out the premises to one Muhammad Khan and on his death the tenancy stood determined and its possession was handed over to the successors of Ahmedi Begum and that the premises was no more on rent. He contended that the sons (respondents Nos.30 and 31) of Muhammad. Khan on his death never remained tenants and had voluntarily restored the possession of the premises to the successors of Ahmedi Begum. The learned Counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned judgment.
9. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and have perused the record. We inquired from the learned Counsel for the respondents as to the date on which the Predecessors- in-interest of respondents Nos. 30 and 31 died and also the date on which his said two sons namely Muhammad Gulistan and Muhammad Bostan had handed over possession of the premises in dispute to the successors of Ahmedi Begum, he stated that the requisite dates are not available on record.
10. The contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents that on the death of Muhammad Khan, the tenancy stood determined and the possession of the property was restored to Ahmedi Begum and or her successors, is not borne out from the record. On the contrary, on 4-4-2002 Muhammad Gulistan and Muhammad Bostan (respondents Nos.30 and 31) filed written statements pleading that they are the tenants in possession of the premises and had acquired tenancy of the premises on the death of their father. They, however, denied that they are tenants of the appellants, The ejectment order was passed by the RentController against the aforesaid tenants, after recording evidence concluding that relationship of tenant and landlord existed between Ghulam Hussain, the Predecessor-in-interest of the appellants and the respondents Nos.30 and 31. The appeal preferred by respondents Nos.30 and 31 was dismissed on 3-10-2001 whereafter execution proceedings were filed by the appellants and during execution proceedings the objection Petition was filed by Mst. Ashari Begum, claiming herself to be the owner being daughter of Ahmedi Begum. Such objection Petition was dismissed and the said orders were maintained up to the High Court. The issue before the Executing Court was to eject respondents Nos.30 and 31 or any other person claiming through them and or otherwise in possession on the strength of any transaction. No one has challenged the order of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller arid the Executing Court, in law, was bound to give effect to it and cannot entertain objection Petitions subsequently on the issues already decided by the Rent Controller nor could it entertain any claim of respondents to enlarge the scope of Rent proceedings.
11. We have noticed that the respondents time and again attempted to defeat the ejectment order by making various objection Petitions before the Executing Court and dragged the proceedings. An Executing Court has limited jurisdiction. It cannot entertain any objection Petition on the issues already decided by it nor could it consider objection B Petition on the basis of issues pending in collateral proceedings before any other forum. Likewise ejectment order cannot be interfered with by any Civil Court in collateral proceedings. The learned High Court has C failed to notice that on 7- 6-2001, the Rent Controller has passed ejectment order holding that relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the appellant's successors and respondents Nos.30 and 31. This order attained finality in Appeal. The Executing Court through objection Petitions by respondents or Raja Sanaullah has allowed to introduce issues which have changed the complexion of execution proceedings to that of original rent proceedings. Such powers are not conferred on the Executing Court. For the above reasons, we hold that the appellants were deprived from the benefit of the ejectment order passed on 7-6-2001 till date. A right claimed by any of the respondents or any other person either on the basis of possession and or a sale agreement cannot restrict an Executing Court for ejecting all or any of such respondent and of person in satisfaction of the decree and or ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller to put in possession the appellants.
12. The above are the reasons, for our short order of even date, which reads as under:-- "For reasons to be recorded later, this Appeal is allowed, impugned judgment is set aside. The respondents, or any person claiming through or on behalf of them, or is otherwise in possession, shall hand over vacant possession of the premises in dispute to the appellants within a period of 15 days. The exacting Court is directed to issue writ of possession, with police aid without notice and restore possession of the premises to the appellants. The compliance report shall be submitted by the Executing Court to the Registrar of this Court".