1. ' SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.---The petitioner has impugned orders dated 2-2-2011, 14-3-2011 and 15-3-2011 passed by the learned IVth Senior Civil Judge, Karachi East, in Execution No,23 of 2006 whereby (1) sale of the attached property was directed, (ii) the petitioner's application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. To stay the sale of attached property was rejected and (iii) the cheque deposited by the petitioner for Rs.229,100 i,e, the balance decretal amount was directed to be deposited in Government account.
2. ' When this petition was taken up for hearing in the morning, we had asked the counsel for the petitioner to explain as to how the orders passed by the learned IVth Senior Civil Judge, Karachi East, could be directly challenged before a Division Bench of this Court without exhausting remedies as provided under the Code of Civil Procedure, counsel sought time and requested that the hearing be taken up after sometime enabling him to respond to the proposition and consequently at his request matter was taken up after two hours. Counsel in the second round vigorously argued that the petitioner had filed objection in execution proceedings pending before IVth Senior Civil Judge, Karachi East, under Order XXI, Rule 58, C.P.C. And the Court without deciding such objections/application had directed sale of the attached property which the petitioner had purchased, therefore, petitioner had no option but to approach this Court. It was further contended that the petitioner had brought the Judgment-Debtor before the executing Court who undertook to pay the decretal amount in installment of Rs.25,000 per month and such arrangements were agreed by the Decree-Holder duly recorded by the Court vide order dated 15-5-2010 and, therefore, the attached property could not be sold.
3. ' On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent stated that the petitioners' application under Order XXI, Rule 58, C.P.C. Was rejected on 8-5-2010 and the petitioner did not avail the lawful remedy against such order. It was further contended that the petitioner is in collusion with the Judgment Debtor and just to prolong the execution proceedings has adopted such delaying tactics, when confronted with this position, counsel for the petitioner conceded that his application under Order XXI, Rule 58, C.P.C. Was dismissed way back on 8-5-2010 by directing "File" and thereafter he had brought the Judgment-Debtor who undertook to pay the decretal amount in installment of Rs.25,000 which was agreed by the Decree-Holder. Counsel has further rendered apology for asserting and urging before this Court that no orders on his application under Order XXI Rule 58, C.P.C. Was passed.
4. ' We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have perused the record.
5. ' Perusal of the record reflects that a suit for recovery of Rs.2 Million was filed by respondent No,2 against respondent No,3 before this Court which was numbered as Suit No, 728 of 1999 and after devolution of pecuniary jurisdiction the said suit was transferred to the District Court and was renumbered as Suit No, 1276 of 2002 and ultimately the said suit was decreed on 10-10-2006 for Rs.2,54,100. The Decree Holder oh 20-11-2006 filed an application for execution of the decree which was numbered as Execution No, 23 of 2006 and ultimately on 4-4-2007 was allowed as prayed.
6. ' The record further reflects that since assets of respondent No,3/judgment debtor could not be located, therefore, property bearing No, A-68, Block-4, Gulshan-e-Iqbal, Karachi in the name of respondent No,4, wife of the Managing Director of respondent No,3, was attached. The respondent No,4 on 21-4-2007 moved an application under Order XXI, Rule 58, C.P.C. Asserting therein that the property is owned by her and therefore not liable for attachment. The court after hearing the objection rejected the same vide its order dated 19-5-2009, which order was never challenged and consequently attained the finality.
7. ' It appears that the petitioner purchased the property on 5-11-2009 i,e, after almost three years of its attachment and almost after six months of rejection of the application of its owner under Order XXI, Rule 58, C.P.C. The petitioner on 12-3-2010 moved an application under Order I Rule 10, C.P.C.
8. Which after hearing was dismissed on 20-9-2010. The petitioner thereafter on 8-5-2010 moved an application under Order XXI Rule 58, C.P.C. Which was rejected by ordering "file" on the same day without commenting on the legality of such order we only observe that the petitioner never impugned such order before any forum.
9. ' The record further reflects that on 15-5-2010 judgment debtor moved an application under section 151, C.P.C. With a cheque of Rs.25,000 seeking permission of the court to pay the decretal amount through instalments and the court on the same day by consent of the decree holder allowed such application. However, the record reflects that thereafter the judgment debtor failed to pay any amount and consequently sale proclamation under Order XXI Rule 66, C.P.C. Was directed to be published. The petitioner again moved an application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C.
10. Asserting that his application under Order XXI, Rule 58, C.P.C. Is pending which application was dismissed on 12-3-2011 and thereafter the petitioner on 15-3-2011 deposited a sum of Rs.229,100 with the executing court and then challenged the order dated 2-2-2011 whereby the attached property was directed to be put to sale to recover the decretal amount and the order rejecting the petitioners application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2, C.P.C. For staying the execution proceedings and the order dated 15-3-2011 whereby the amount was deposited, still order dated 8-5-2010 was not impugned. - ' Admittedly, the order whereby the subject property was attached has attained finality and the application of the petitioner to become party in the Execution Application though even otherwise not maintainable was rightly rejected by the trial Court on 20-9-2010 and thereafter his application under Order XXI, Rule 58, C.P.C. Was admittedly rejected on 8-5-2010. The petitioner did not challenge any of the orders before the forum provided under the law and when the Court was about to issue sale proclamation, the petitioner deposited the decretal amount and thereafter challenged the order of deposit which was voluntarily made by him before the Court. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate any good cause for interference with the order of the Executing Court while exercising writ jurisdiction and has further failed to give any plausible explanation for skipping the forum to challenge these orders and directly approaching this Court. No case for interference is made out. Petition is dismissed, Executing Court is directed to disburse the amount to the Judgment Debtor forthwith.