' WAQAR AHMAD SETH, J.--- Brief facts of the case are that the respondent instituted a suit for declaration to the effect that his removal/dismissal, etter/order dated 27-5-1997 is wrong, illegal, against facts, based on mala fide, hence, liable to be cancelled. The petitioners appeared and contested the suit by filing written statement and learned trial court after recording pro and contra evidence and hearing the parties decreed the suit vide judgment dated 20-4-2000. Feeling dissatisfied, the petitioners preferred appeal and learned appellate court after hearing the parties dismissed the same vide impugned judgment dated 31-1-2002. The respondent/decree holder filed execution petition and as a result full and final payment of his service dues and benefits were paid by the petitioners. However, the execution petition was dismissed in default on 27-11-2004. The respondent filed another execution petition on 10-11-2006, which was also dismissed for non prosecution on 13-11-2009. The respondent moved application for restoration-of execution application, which was restored on 3-12-2009. The petitioners filed objection petition under section 47, C.P.C. For dismissal of execution petition and the learned executing court on acceptance of the same, dismissed the execution application on 7-10-2010. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent preferred appeal and learned appellate court after hearing the parties accepted the same and restored the execution application vide impugned order, hence, the instant petition.
2. Arguments heard and record perused.
3. A perusal of record would reveal that the respondent after obtaining judgment and decree dated 20-4-2000 filed an execution application and during the execution proceedings the decree holder received cheque dated 28-2-2004 amounting to Rs.1,95,607 regarding all A his dues/back benefits and nothing had been left outstanding at that time against the judgment debtors/petitioners. The only dispute, as per contention of respondent, is regarding his reinstatement under the decree dated 20-4-2000 for which time and again at different occasions the respondent filed execution applications.
4. As per principles, rules and procedure governing the service matters, the employee on appointment/re-appointment or reinstatement etc. Is supposed to make or submit arrival report there and then but in the instant case respondent in response to his reinstatement order/decree dated 20-4-2000 reported his arrival on 31-5-2002 to the Chairman BISE for reinstatement, received through diary No.897 dated 31-5-2002 i.e. After more than two years from the date of decree and after five months of the decision of appeal, where the decree dated 20-4-2000 was never suspended.
5. The decree of the Court is an order of reinstatement and there is no need for passing a fresh order the only need is the arrival report, which was allegedly made on 31-5-2002. On 25-2-2002 the respondent was issued show-cause notice on the omission and commission of misconduct i.e. Willful absence and non-compliance of court order. Before the show-cause notice an Enquiry Committee was constituted vide letter dated 29-5-2002 under Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, with a copy to the respondent, who upon receipt submitted his arrival report vide diary No.897 dated 31-5-2002. Respondent through different letters sent through registered post as well as through courier services and was informed to attend the enquiry proceedings but he preferred to remain absent willfully, hence, ex parte enquiry was conducted and finally vide order dated 3-9-2002 dismissal order of respondent was passed under KPK Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 and the same order of dismissal dated C 3-9-2002 was never challenged before the competent forum, hence, the same is still in field and thereafter the respondent received the back benefits vide cheque dated 28-2-2004. It is also on record that the execution petition of respondent was dismissed for non-prosecution on 27-11-2004.
Second execution application moved by respondent on 10-11-2006 was also dismissed for non- prosecution on 13-1-2009. Thus, the executing Court rightly held that to the extent of back benefits the respondent has received the cheque and regarding reinstatement he has again been dismissed from service, which order has neither been challenged by the respondent in any forum nor called in question in any manner whatsoever under the relevant law, hence the objection petition filed by petitioners held justified and execution petition dismissed. The learned appellate court had illegally reversed the order of the executing court by not appreciating the facts on record, hence, the order of appellate court is liable to be set aside. In the case of Habib Bank Limited v. Mst. Parveen Qasim Jan and others reported as 2014 SCM R 322, it has been held as under:--- "In the proceedings of the execution of decree, the executing Court, while exercising jurisdiction under section 47, C.P. C. Can question the excitability of a decree, if it is satisfied that the decree is a nullity in the eye of law or it has been passed by a Court having no jurisdiction or the non- execution of the decree would not infringe the legal rights of the decree holder or the decree has been passed in violation of any provision of law, only then executing Court can refuse to execute the decree."
6. In view of the above, this revision petition is allowed, impugned judgment dated 4-8-2011 of Additional District Judge-V, Abbottabad stands set-aside and order of Civil Judge-I, Abbottabad is restored on different reasons. No order as to costs. 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.