' MUHAMMAD FARRUKH IRFAN KHAN, J.---This order shall dispose of Civil Revision 542-2004 filed on behalf of the petitioner to assail validity of order dated 14-6-2004 through which the learned Additional District Judge-I Ahmed Pur East dismissed petitioner's appeal preferred against the order dated 21-5-2004 of the Executing Court dismissing his objection petition.
2. Relevant facts for disposal of the captioned Civil Revision are that during execution proceedings, petitioner filed an objection petition primarily on twofold grounds, firstly, that conciliation Court was coram non judice and was not vested with jurisdiction to pass decree and secondly that the petitioner was not served and he only became aware of the decree after issuance of the process against him by the executing Court. The Court seized of the lis dismissed petitioner's objection petition vide order dated 21-5-2004 observing that jurisdiction of the conciliation Court to pass decree under execution could not be determined by the executing Court. The appeal arising therefrom too was dismissed vide order impugned dated 14-6-2004.
3. It was strenuously argued that impugned orders of both the courts below are evidently tainted with misapplication of judicial mind and suffer from legal infirmity, therefore, are not sustainable in law. Adds that both the courts below did not advert to the real issue which still remains inconclusive and requires adjudication. Also contends that it was the bounden duty of the courts below to dilate upon the fact whether conciliation court was vested' with any authority and jurisdiction to proceed in the matter ex parte against the petitioner merely on the basis of oral claim. In the context of the composition, lawful authority and jurisdiction of the conciliation court, it was emphatically . Argued that chairman alone had no legal authority to decide the matter unilaterally in absence of the recommendation/observation of the members, for, the court in addition to chairman also consists of two representatives, hence, the impugned order being coram non judice was open to judicial scrutiny at the crucial juncture of the execution proceedings, which aspect of the matter was ignored and overlooked through the impugned orders. Last but not the least it was also contended that decree was obtained through fraud and misrepresentation.
4. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondent supports impugned orders by contending that the courts below have exercised jurisdiction vested in them in consonance with the settled principle of law that the executing court cannot go beyond the dictates of decree, hence, the objection petition of the petitioner was rightly dismissed by the courts below through the orders impugned.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the facts of the case as well as plethora of case-law cited at the bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. In plethora of consistent judgments of this Court as well as the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, the issue regarding the jurisdiction and authority of the executing court for executability of decree was thoroughly examined and adjudicated upon. In the judgment reported as 2003 SCM R 1202 Allah Ditta v. Ahmad Ali Shah it was laid down that executing-court cannot extend its jurisdiction to go behind the decree and question its correctness where decree was silent as to which property was subject matter of execution. The executing court can look into the judgment in order to find out that property brought for the satisfaction of decree actually belongs to the judgment debtor but cannot entertain objection relating to the dispute of title and its determination which may change and alter the terms of decree.
' In the case reported as Muhammad Tariq Khan T. Muhammad Jawwad 2007 SCM R 818 it was held that decree could be executed in the light of terms and conditions mentioned therein, and the executing court could not go behind decree.
7. In another case reported as Naseem Akhtar v. Shalimar General Insurance Company 1994 SC MR 22 it was conclusively determined and authoritatively laid down that once a decree was passed it had to be executed in its terms and it was not open to executing court to go behind it and re- determine the liability of parties.
8. In the context of execution of decree and jurisdiction of the executing court, in the case reported as Habib Bank v. Wasim 2007 CLD 473 it was laid down that no court under the garb of substantive justice could be allowed to exceed its jurisdiction or violate the settled legal principles as regards jurisdiction of executing court, that it could not go behind the judgment and decree under execution. And in the case reported as Shafqat Ullah v. Land Acquisition 2006 CLC 1555 DB it was precisely held that the executing court could not go behind or beyond decree and that the executing court being coram non judice has no power and authority to go beyond or behind decree and has to remain within the limits prescribed by the decree in respect of the rights and liabilities of the parties. It was added that the executing court has no power or authority to make any modification, change, deletion, alteration, insertion or addition in a decree.
I have examined both the orders impugned on the touchstone and litmus test laid down by the superior Courts in the aforesaid celebrated judgments and found that both the courts below while passing impugned orders did not deviate from the settled parameters and guiding principles regarding jurisdiction and authority of the executing court with regard to executability of a decree.
While dismissing the objection petition of the petitioner, the executing court did not commit any illegality and the said order was rightly upheld by the learned Judge of the first appellate court, hence, this Civil Revision being misconceived and devoid of any merit must fail, therefore, the same is accordingly dismissed.