' KHADIM HUSSAIN M. SHAIKH, J.---Through this petition, the petitioner has sought for orders directing the respondents to deposit the decretal amount plus Rs,80,000/- allegedly sent to the respondent No,4 by the petitioner.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner had allegedly entered into an agreement with ALTER S.A.R.L Laboratories Portugal and is alleged to have made payment of U.S.$ 107,178.00 to the said company regarding supply of certain medicines to the petitioner, which were not supplied to him according to the terms and conditions of the aforementioned agreement; the petitioner approached the aforesaid company for return of the above amount to him along with mark-up and he also approached the Embassy of Pakistan at Portugal for the purpose, but his all efforts yielded no fruits, hence he filed the suit being F.C. Suit No,118 of 2004 for recovery of the aforesaid amount along with interest etc. In the Court of III-Senior Civil Judge, Hyderabad which was ultimately decreed vide ex parte judgment and decree on 26.02.2007 and now the execution proceedings, initiated by the petitioner, are pending before the executing Court; as the petitioner has not been paid the decretal amount etc, hence he has filed this petition.
3. The para wise comments on behalf of the respondents Nos.1 to 4 have been filed, wherein all the allegations and claim leveled by the petitioner have been categorically denied. It is further alleged therein that the petitioner has made contradictory statements at various stages and has also not desisted from forging documents to present his claim. The petitioner in rebuttal has filed his objections on para wise comments filed by the respondent No,4 and others.
4. Learned advocate for the petitioner has mainly contended that the Court of III-Senior Civil Judge, Hyderabad has passed judgment and decree in a suit filed by the petitioner for recovery of the amount paid by him to a company namely ALTER S.A.R.L. Laboratories Portugal in petitioner's favour and now the execution proceedings, initiated by him, are pending before the executing Court; per him, the satisfaction of the decree has been delayed, hence he has filed this petition. He, therefore, requests that the orders may be passed against the respondents directing them to deposit the decreetal amount etc plus Rs,80,00/- sent to the respondent No,4 by the petitioner.
5. Learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents has contended that factual controversy is involved in this case and the petitioner has already approached the Court for executing the decree allegedly passed in his favour and such execution proceedings are pending there. He, therefore, prays that the petition may be dismissed.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and have gone through the material placed on record.
7. Admittedly the execution proceedings seeking satisfaction of the decree, having been initiated by the petitioner, are pending before the executing Court i.e, the Court of III-Senior Civil Judge, Hyderabad and mode of recovery of the decreetal amount etc is provided under the relevant provisions of law; it is only the. Court executing the decree to determine the questions relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree and in our humble view no separate proceedings are warranted.
8. Record reflects that on 08.04.2014, the learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to satisfy the Court on the next date of hearing as to how the instant petition is maintainable. Thereafter, the learned counsel for the petitioner chose to remain absent for couple of dates of hearing. Lastly on 14.04.2015, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought further time to satisfy the court that during the pendency of execution application in the Civil Court how the writ can be issued.
9. It needs no reiteration that the jurisdiction of this Court under the provisions of Article 199 of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 is conditional upon non-availability of other remedy to the petitioner; and in the case in hand the execution proceedings, initiated by the petitioner, are pending before the executing court.
10. In view of what has been stated above, we are of the considered opinion that the present petition being mis-conceived is not maintainable. The learned advocate for the petitioner has also not been able to satisfy the Court as to how this petition is maintainable. Accordingly, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
11. Above are the reasons of our short order dated 16.02.2016, whereby this petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.