ALI BAIG, J.---This civil 1st appeal is directed against the impugned order/judgment dated 10.07.2018 passed by the learned Referee Judge/District Judge Astore in execution Petition No. 1/2017 whereby the learned executing court has directed S.P. Astore to attach the official vehicles of judgment debtors/respondents.
2. Succinctly facts of the case giving rise to the filing of this civil 1st appeal are that the present respondents/decree holders had filed reference petition under section 18 of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in the Court of Referee Judge/District Judge Astore against the present appellants which was eventually allowed by the learned Trial Court/Referee Court vide judgment dated 24.8.2013.
The present appellants had challenged the aforesaid judgment/decree passed by the learned Trial Court/Referee Court in this court through civil 1st appeal. A division this court vide judgment dated 18.10.2016 has dismissed the aforesaid appeal of the appellants. Accordingly the present respondents/decree holders filed an execution petition in the court of the learned Referee/Executing Court Astore on 17-5-2017. The learned Executing Court issued several directions to the present appellants/judgment debtors to pay decretal amount of compensation to the respondents/decree holders but the judgment debtors failed to pay the decretal compensation amount to the decree holders/respondents. Lastly the learned executing court vide the impugned order dated 10.7.2018 has directed S.P. Astore to attach vehicles bearing registration Nos. Astore A-11 and Astore 24.
3. Feelings aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the learned Executing Court/District Court Astore, the appellants have preferred the instant civil 1st appeal in this court.
4. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the appellants contended that the impugned order passed by the learned Executing Court Astore is contrary to law and facts on the record of the case as such the impugned order passed by the learned Executing Court is not maintainable and liable to be set aside. The Learned Additional. Advocate General further argued that under section 82, C.P.C. the Executing Court is bound to make a report to the Provincial Government if decree is not satisfied by the government functionaries within the time specified in it but the learned executing court has failed to report the respondents regarding execution/ implementation of decree passed in favor of the present respondents/ decree holders.
5. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondents controverted the arguments advanced by the Learned Additional Advocate General and supported the impugned order passed by the learned Executing Court by contending that despite issuance of repeated directions the appellants/ judgment debtors have failed to satisfy/execute the decree passed by Executing Court, therefore, the Learned Executing Court has rightly issued directions to S.P. Astore to attach the vehicles which are in possession of the appellants.
6. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.
7. Admittedly the learned Executing Court/Reference Judge has decreed the reference petition filed under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in favor of the present respondents/decree holders vide judgment dated 24.8.2013 and a Division Bench of this court vide judgment dated 18.10.2016 has also maintained the judgment of learned District Judge/Referee Judge Astore by dismissing appeal of present appellants. The matter has attained finality. Accordingly the decree holders/respondents have filed an execution petition in the learned trial court/executing court on 17.7.2017 which was registered vide execution Petition No 01/2017 by the learned executing court.
After registration of the aforesaid- execution petition the learned Executing Court issued summons to the judgment debtors/appellants. Accordingly the learned District Attorney Astore and Legal Advisor for respondents Nos. 2 and 3 have appeared before the learned Executing Court on 7.6.2017 on behalf of the appellants and stated that they will file objections in the Executing Court on the next date of hearing i.e. on 4.7.2017 but on the said date the appellant/judgment debtors did not file objections. Thereafter many opportunities were afforded to the judgment debtors by the learned Executing Court Astore with the directions either to file objections or satisfy the decree but the present appellants/judgment debtors have miserably failed to comply with the directions of learned Executing Court. The D.A. and L.A. P.W.D Astore have been seeking adjournments on one pretext or the other. Finally the learned Executing Court had left with no option but to attach the official vehicles bearing Registration Nos. Astore A-11 and Astore 24 which are at the disposal of the appellants/judgment debtors.
8. Main thrust of contentions of the learned Additional AG is that the learned Executing Court has not reported the case for the orders of the provincial government as required under sections 82, C.P.C. before passing the impugned order under appeal. In this connection it is observed that provincial government is not party to the execution petition and even otherwise the learned District Attorney Astore and Legal Advisor of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 have been appearing in the Executing Court on behalf of the judgment debtors and they have conveyed the judgment debtors/appellants regarding institution of execution petition in the trial court. Moreover, the learned Executing Court vide order sheet dated 28.6.2018 has directed the appellants/judgment debtors to pay the decretal amount available in the account of collector/judgment debtor No 1 till next date of hearing and copy of said order was forwarded to Secretary Works G.B and other relevant authorities as evident from the order sheet dated 28.6.2018 maintained by the learned Executing Court. Hence we are of the considered view that notice under section 82 C.P.C. is not required to be issued to the provincial government as provincial government is not party to the execution petition.
9. For what has been discussed above, this civil first appeal being without any substance stands dismissed with no order as to costs.