' MAHMOOD AHMAD BHATTI, J. --- This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 23.5.2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Lahore, whereby an objection petition filed by the appellants under Section 47, C.P.C. Was dismissed and warrant of attachment was re-issued.
2. The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that Lease Pak Limited, the respondent/plaintiff instituted a suit for the recovery of Rs, 15,429,730.00 against the appellants, which was partly decreed to the extent of Rs, 54,29,730/- with simple interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of filing of the suit until the realization of the decretal amount, vide judgment and decree dated 1.7.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Lahore. The decree-holder filed an execution petition on 4.10.2011 under Order 21, C.P.C. Thereupon, the appellants were jolted into action and they filed an application under Section 12(2), C.P.C. Seeking to recall the aforesaid judgment and decree. This application was dismissed and a revision petition filed there against also met the same fate: Undeterred, the appellants filed an objection petition, out of which this appeal has arisen The respondent/decree-holder resisted this application. As stated above, the objection petition was dismissed by the learned executing Court vide order dated 23.5.2015.
3. In support of this appeal, the learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the learned executing Court did not address itself to provisions of Section 82, C.P.C. It did not take into account that while passing the judgment and decree, dated 1.7.2011, the Court concerned did not specify the time within which the decree was to be satisfied. In amplification, he has urged that no decree against the "Government" can be executed without the fulfilling of the mandatory provisions of law.
The failure of the "Government" to satisfy the decree would arise only if the time was specified in the decree, and it elapsed. He has made the argument that the learned executing Court made much of the dismissal of the application moved by the appellants under Section 12(2), C.P.C.
Another argument put forward by him is that the objection petition fild by the appellants was not to be dismissed summarily.
4. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondent/decree-holder has supported the impugned order. Much emphasis has been laid on the fact that huge monetary loss was caused to the decree-holder, constraining him to institute a suit for the recovery of Rs, 15,429,730.00. Instead of bowing their heads to the verdict of the competent Court of law, they appealed against the same, without success. They pursued their case relentlessly and vigorously upto the Supreme Court of Pakistan, and now when the decree passed in favour of the respondent was about to be executed by adopting coercive measures, the appellants threw a spanner in the works by filing an objection petition, thereby obstructing the proceedings of the executing Court and delaying the execution of the decree passed against there.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record with their assistance.
6. There is no getting away from the fact that a money decree of Rs, 54,29,730/- was passed against the appellants with simple interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of the institution of the suit until the realization of the decretal amount. But the passing of a decree is one thing and the mode and manner it is to be executed is quite another. It has not been denied by the learned counsel for the respondent that under Section 82 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, the learned Trial Court decreeing the suit was required to specify the time within which the decree was to be satisfied by the appellants. And yet he has adopted the stance that if this provision of law escaped the notice of the Court concerned, the decree-holder is not to be penalized for it and the decree is not to be put on hold on this ground alone. I find it hard to agree with this contention, which appears to be innocuous but is specious, fallacious and untenable. It is well-settled that when law specifies a thing to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner or not at all. All other methods for its performance are necessarily forbidden. In this respect, reference may well be made to a chain of judgments reported as "Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor" (AIR 1936 P C 253), "Taylor v. Taylor" (1875) 1 Ch D 426)), "Atta Muhammad Qureshi v. Settlement Commissioner"
(PLD 1971 S.C. 61), "Salahuddin v. Bibi Zubaida" (1994 MLD 2464), "Abdul Razzaq v. Muhammad Sharir (PLD 1997 Lahore 1), "Khyber Tractors (Pvt.) Ltd. V. Pakistan through Ministry of Finance, Revenue and Economic Affairs, Islamabad" (PLD 2005 S.C. 842), "Messrs Muhammad All & Brothers v. Director- General, L.D.A." (2005 MLD 768), "Qamar Javed v. Gul Jahan" (2005 MLD 1329), "Haji Ch. Masood Akhtar v. Election Commission of Pakistan" (2005 CLC 172), "Mehreen Zaidi v. University of Health Sciences, Lahore through Vice-Chancellor" (2005 CLC 1787), "Muhammad Rafiq v. State" (2005 YLR 3247 Kar.), "Tariq Khan v. Station House Officer" (2005 YLR 1041), "Raja Hamayun Sarfraz Khan v. Noor Muhammad" (2007 SCMR 307), "Haji Khuda Bukhsh v. Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab, Lahore" (PLD 2007 Lahore 341) and "Muhammad Akram v. Mst. Zainab Bibi" (2007 SCMR 1086).
7. I have carefully gone through the judgment and decree dated 1.7.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Lahore in favour of the respondent. It is completely silent on the time within which the appellants were to satisfy the decree. This is an Act of the Court and there is a plethora of judgments, holding that the acts of the Courts shall not cause prejudice nor shall the rights and interests of the parties be affected by them. In this respect, suffice it to rely upon the judgment of the apex Court reported as "Sajawal Khan v. Wali Muhammad and others" (2002 SCMR 134) in which threadbare discussion on the subject was made. The law was reiterated in the judgments reported as "Sherin v. Fazal Muhammad" (1995 SCMR 584), "Jawad Mir Muhammadi and others v.
Haroon Mirza" (PLD 2007 S.C. 472) and "Zulfiqar and others v. Shandat Khan" (PLD 2007 S.C. 582).
8. Admittedly, the appeal filed by the appellants to get the judgment and decree dated 1.7.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Lahore reversed and overturned was dismissed. As such the aforesaid judgment and decree merged into that of the learned Appellate Court. Ordinarily, the decree to be executed would be that of the learned Appellate Court. However, the learned counsel for the decree-holder was at pains to explain that the execution petition was filed soon after the passing of the decree dated 1.72011. According to him, the decree-holder made it snappy so that the decree might not become in executable with the passage of time or due to some act or omission on his part. Since this question is not fairly and squarely at issue in this appeal, I would leave it at that.
9. Tree, the respondent/decree-holder has not been able to enjoy the fruit of the decree since 1.7.2011, but heavens would not have fallen if the learned executing Court had given adequate time to the appellants to satisfy the decree. I have considered long and hard as to whether it would be feasible and expedient to remit the matter to the learned executing Court to decide the objection petition of the appellants afresh. Given the agony of the decree-holder and to cut the matter short, the appellants are granted three-months' time to satisfy the decree dated 1.7.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Lahore. Should the appellants fail to avail of this opportunity, the learned Trial Court would be at liberty to proceed with the execution petition pending before it strictly in accordance with the law.
10. In view of the discussion made above, the impugned order dated 23.5.2015 passed by the learned executing Court is hereby set aside and this appeal is allowed in the above terms. FAO allowed.