CH. MUHAMMAD IQBAL, J.----Through this civil revision the petitioners have challenged the legality of order dated 20-7-2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Okara who dismissed the objection petition of the petitioners and order dated 25-1-2019 passed by the learned Additional District and Session Judge, Okara who dismissed the appeal of the petitioners.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents filed suit for recovery of maintenance allowance against his grand-father and grand-mother . The said suit was decreed by the learned Judge Family Court, Okara vide judgment and decree dated 8-11-2010. Against the said order , respondents filed appeal and the learned District Judge, Okara modified the judgment and decree of the learned Judge Family Court vide his judgment and decree dated 23.12.2014. Now against the aforementioned judgments and decrees, the petitioners filed Writ Petition No.1808/2015 which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 09.10.2015. Against all the above decisions, CPLA No.2728-L of 2015 of the petitioners is still pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan.
Respondents filed petition for execution of the said decree and the petitioners filed objection petition which was dismissed by the learned trial court vide order dated 20.07.2018. The appeal of the petitioners was also dismissed by the learned appellate court vide order dated 25.01.2019. Hence, this civil revision.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the orders of the learned courts below are illegal, perverse and erroneous; that decree was passed against the petitioner/ Hassan Ahmad Khan who has died and after death of Hassan Ahmad Khan his legal heirs are not liable to pay the maintenance allowance to the respondents.
4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for both the parties and gone through the record with their able assistance.
5. This case has a chequered history . One Ghulam Mohy-ud-Din Hassan was owner of agricultural land measuring 90- Kanals 2-Malras. He died on 26.07.2006 and his inheritance mutation No.221 dated 31.08.2006 was sanctioned in favour of the petitioners excluding the names of deceased's son, Adnan Hassan, respondent No.1 and his widow Mumtaz Bibi. Against the sanctioning of above inheritance muta tion, respondent No.1 and Mst.
Mumtaz Bibi filed appeal which was accepted by the Deputy District Officer (Revenue)/Collector , Depalpur vide order dated 14.11.2007. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner Hassan Ahmad Khan Kunwar challenged the said order before the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Okara who accepted the said appeal and directed the parties to approach the civil court for determination of the controversy vide order dated 03.12.2008. Respondent No.1 challenged the said order through ROR No.277 of 2009 which was dismissed by the Member (Judicial-VI), Board of Revenue, Punjab vide order dated 16.06.2009.
The petitioners' predecessor Hassan Ahmad Khan filed suit declaration alongwith permanent injunction (titled as Hassan Ahmad Khan v. Mumtaz Bibi alias Taji and others ) as well as application for making award as rule of court titled as "Hassan Ahmad Khan Kunwar v. Mumtaz Bibi others." Respondent No.1 and his mother Mst.
Mumtaz Bibi also filed a suit for declaration along with permanent injunction titled as "Mumtaz Bibi and others v.
E. T. O and others ". The aforementioned suits were consolidated by the learned trial court and vide consolidated judgment and decree dated 27.07.2009 dismissed all the suits. Respondent No.1 and his mother Mumtaz Bibi being son and widow of Ghulam Mohy-ud-Din Hassan filed suit for recovery of maintenance allowance which was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 08.11.2010. Against the said judgment and decree as well as aforementioned judgment and decree dated 27.07.2009, four appeals were filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners and the learned District Judge, Okara vide judgment and decree dated 23.12.2014 dismissed the appeals of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners and modified judgment and decree dated 08.11.2010 passed in suit for recovery of maintenance allowance filed by respondent No.1 and Mumtaz Bibi. Predecessor-in- interest of the petitioners as well as petitio ners filed Civil Revision No.176/2015 which was dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 09.10.2015 with costs of Rs.20,000/- Petitioners predecessor as well as the petitioners filed Civil Petition No.2727-L of 2015 before the Hon'hle Supreme Court of Pakistan which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 25.05.2016 Whereas Civil Petition No.2728-L of 2015 to the extent of maintenance allowance is still pending before the Hon'ble apex Court.
Respondent No.1 Adnan Hassan and his mother filed application for the review/ correction of inheritance mutations No.21 1 dated 31.08.2006, 327 dated 2.9.08.2014 and 32486 dated 15.08.2016 but their application was dismissed by Naib Tehsildar , Depalpur vide order dated 15.08.2016. The said order was assailed by respondent No.1 and his mother before. Assistant Commissioner through an appeal which was dismissed vide order dated 05.04.2017.
Against the said order , respondent No.1 and his mother filed appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Sahiwal Division, Camp at Okara which was also dismissed vide order dated 07.12.2017. Respondent No.1 and his mother Mumtaz Bibi challenged all the aforementioned orders through ROR No.371 of 2018 which was also dismissed by the Member (Judicial-VII), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Camp at Sahiwal vide order dated 14.01.2019. Against the said order , respondent No.1 filed Writ Petition No.11802/2019 which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 18.10.2019. One Ghulam Mohy-ud-Din Hassan son of Hassan Ahmad Khan (petitioner No.2) filed application under Order IX, Rule 13, read with section 151, C.P.C. (C.M.No.6/2019 ) which was also dismissed by this Court vide order dated 04.11.2019. Against order dated 18.10.2019, petitioners filed Civil Petition No.4178 of 2019 which was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan vide order dated 05.12.2019. For ready reference, Para-7 of above said order is reproduced as under:- "7. We agree with the findings of the lower courts in that Respondents Nos.1 and 2 are the widow and son of deceased, Ghulam Mohy-ud-Din Hasan . The record clearly reflects that there is sufficient evidence to establish the marriage of Respondent No.1 with Ghulam Mohy-ud-Din Hasan . This is evident from the CNIC issue d to Respondent No.1 wherein she was stated to be his. spouse. Furthermore, CNIC was also issued to Respondent No.2 stating his father to be Ghulam Mohy-ud-Din Hasan . The birth register entry and the DNA test results, also conclusively put this issue to rest and it can be stated with finality that Respondents Nos.1 and 2 are the widow and son of Ghulam Mohy-ud-Din Hasan as was correctly held by all the fora below . The learned ASC for the Petitioners did not point us to any evidence that may even remotely have rebutted this finding . It is unfortunate that the father of the deceased attempted to disinherit the widow of his son and his own grandson from their rightful share.
However , we cannot allow such abuse of law and violation of the rights of widows and orphans for petty-personal gains. Such practices point towards moral and ethical degeneration and such greed cannot be perpetuated by relying on technicalities and Hyper-technicalities. There cannot be worse abuse of the legal process and cannot be worse abuse of the legal process and cannot be countenanced. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2, being the rightful legal heirs of the deceased Ghulam Mohy-ud-Din Hasan are legally entitled to their lawful share in his property . We do not understand under what legal regime the Revenue authorities took it upon themselves to refuse to implement the findings of courts of competent jurisdiction. It is beyond question that the decis ions of the courts are binding on the Revenue Authorities as has been held by this court numerous times. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner was unable to show legal, procedural or jurisdictional defect, error or flaw in the impugned judgment nor was he able to demonstrate any misreading or non-reading of the evidence or the record. We have not found any reason that may have furnished basis or justification to interfere in the impugned judgment which is viable to be maintained and upheld".
Against order dated 04.11.2019 passed on the application under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. (C.M.No.6/2019), Ghulam Mohy-ud-Din Hassan filed Civil Petition No.4177 of 2019 which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan vide order dated 05.12.2019.
6. While deciding the suit for maintenance allowance, the learned Judge Family Court, Okara granted following relief to the respondents vide judgment and decree dated 08.1 1.2010 as under:- "13. In view of my detailed findings under issue No.1, instant suit is decreed to the extent of maintenance allowance of Plaintif f No.1 at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month from date of institu tion of this suit i.e. 17.04.2008, with an annual increment of 10% till his legal entitlement against defendant No.1. Interim maintenance allowance paid by the defendants, if any, shall be deducted from decretal amount. The instant suit is dismissed to the extent of maintenance allowance of plaintif f No.2."
The petitioners filed appeal and the learned appellate court while deciding the appeal modified the judgment and decree of the learned Judge Family Court vide judgment and decree dated 23.12.2014. For ready reference, relevant paragraph of judgment is reproduced as under:- "54. In view of my ahove-said findings given on the issues, Old Appeal No.188/2009 New No.85/2014 titled as "Hassan Ahmad Khan and others v. Mumtaz Bibi and another" and Old Appeal No.189/2009 New No.84/2014 titled as "Hassan Ahmad Khan and others v. Mumtaz Bibi and others " filed against the consolidated judgment and decree dated 27.07.2009 are hereby dismissed, likewise, the Appeal No.237/2010 filed in the suit for maintenance allowance decreed vide judgment and decree dated 23.11.2010, is also hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. However , since the defendant No.1 (of suit for recovery of maintenance)/appella nt Hassan Ahmad Khan has died, therefore, the finding is moulded in this way that up to the date of death of the defendant No.1. the minor Adnan Hassan would be entitled to get the maintenance out of the income and property of the said defendant No.1 and for the onward period minor would be entitled to receive the maintenance allowance from the person who will claim, that the administration of the land of his father Mohay-ud-Din , after the death of defendant No.1 was/is with him and in case the administration is handed over to the mother of the minor or any other person then in that event the said person will provide maintenance to the minor till he attains majority........."
(emphasis supplied)
Against the above decision of lower fora dated 08.11.2010 and 23.12.2014 petitioners filed Civil Revision No.176/2015 before this Court which was dismissed with costs of Rs.20,000/- and the findings of the lower courts were upheld vide judgment dated 09.10.2 015. Petitioners filed Civil Appeal No.27 28-L of 2015 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan which is still pending. Now judgment and decree dated 23.12.2014 was passed by the learned District Judge, Okara who decre ed the suit for maintenance allowance of the respondents minor Adnan Hassan declaring that he would be entitled to get the maintenance out of the income or property of the defendant No.1 and for the onward period minor would be entitled to receive the maintenance allowance from the person who hold the administration of the land of his father Mohay-ud-Din, after the death of defendant No.1 and in case the administration is handed over to the mother of the minor or any other person then in that event the said person would provide maintenance to the minor till he attains majority . Admittedly , land owned by Mohy-ud-Din and shares of the land received for inheritance of defendant No.1 is in the custody of the petitioners and they are under obligation to pay maintenance allowance to the respondent No.1 as decreed by the learned appellate court vide judgment and decree dated 23.12.2014. It is settled law that executing court cannot go behind the decree rather it is duty bound to execute the decree in letter and spirit as per dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in a case reported as Syed Riaz Ahmad Shan and another v. Dayal Singh College Trust Society and another (1972 SCMR 237 ) has held as under:- According to well-settled principles of law the executing Court cannot go behind the decree. Therefore, to permit the petitioners to raise the objection will amount to asking the executing Court to go behind the decree which it cannot.
The Hon'ble apex Court in another judgment reported as Muhammad Ali and others v. Ghulam Sarwar and others (1989 SCMR 640 ) observed that:- It is, however , submitted that the decree was wrongly drawn up by the Civil Court. But it is well-settled principle that the executing Court cannot go behind the decree and has to execute it as it is unless the decree is patently a nullity which is not the case here. Reference, however , may be made to Brig. (Retd.) 1 Muhammad Aslam Khan v. The Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir (1983 CLC 1204 ) and Messrs Haji Ahmed and Co. v.
Muhammad Siddique and others (PLD 1965 (W .P.) Kar . 293).
In another judgment reported as Mst. Naseem Akhtar and 4 others v. Shalimar General Insurance Company Limited and 2 others (1994 SCMR 22 ), the august Court held as under:- In the execution proceedings, it was not open to the respondent No.1 to take up the plea which he had not taken before the learned trial Court during the course of the hearing of the suit which was ultimately decreed and the decree allowed to become final. In these circumstances, the respondent No.1 itself is responsible for the decree against it, even though its liability was limited. It is not open to the responden t No.1 judgment-debtor now to contend that its liability has not been correctly assessed or determined. If it were permissible, there will be no end or finality to the judgment and decree which had become final. Precedents noted and analysed above make quite clear that once a decree is passed it has to be executed in its terms and it is not open to the executing Court to go behind it and re-determine the liability of the parties. In this view of the matter , there is no option but to allow this appeal and hold that the learned Judge in the High Court fell in error in giving effect to the plea of the respondent No.1 which had not been raised before the learned trial Court which granted the decree to the appellants. It may also be noted that the decree has already been executed. There is no good ground in the circumstances to put the clock back. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside.
In another case reported as Irshad Masih and others v. Emmanuel Masih and others (2014 SCMR 1481 ), the august Court held that:- ....there is plethora of case-law on the legal point that the executing Court, under no circumstances can go beyond the decree..... .... This being the undisputed factual position in the present case, as rightly held by the High Court in its judgment dated 11-11-2002, the order of remand passed by the learned Additional District Judge Sahiwal dated 25-1-2001 was not sustainable in law, as the executing Court cannot go beyond the mandat e of the said judgment and thus the present petitioners had no locus standi to seek execution of either the judgments dated 20-1-1969, whereby their predecessor's suit was disposed of without grant of relief prayed for, or the other judgment of the Supreme Court dated 18-6-1995, dismissing their petition and confirming the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 8-12- 1993. Rather , after the death of Mst. Marg ret in the year 1996, there was nothing in the said judgments which was executable at the request of the present petitioners. If any case-law is needed to fortify the view regarding limited jurisdiction of the executing Court, reference can be made so the following cases:-
(i) Muhammad Ali and others v . Ghulam Sarwar and others (1989 SCMR 640 )
(ii) Mst. Naseem Akhtar v: Shalimar General Insurance Company Limited (1994 SCMR 22 )
(iii) Province of Punjab through Secretary Industries v . Burewala T extile Mills Limited (2001 SCMR 396 )
(iv) Taugeer Ahmad Qureshi v . Additional District Judge, Lahore (PLD 2009 SC 760 ) which, respectively lays down as under:- In the case of Muhammad Ali (supra), the Court recognized that it was well-set tled principle of law that unless the judgment and decree was patently a nullity , the executing Court could not go behin d the decree and was bound to execute the same as it stands.
In the case of Mst. Naseem Akhtar (supra) it was held that it was an established principle of law' that the Court in execution proceedings could not be allowed to embark on an inquiry to determine whether the Court passing the decree had the jurisdiction to do so. The Court emphasized that if such broad discretion was given to executing courts there could be no finality attached to any judgment and decree.
In the case of Province of Punjab v. Burewla (supra) this Court reiterated the above principle by stating that the Executing Court could not travel behind the terms of the decree, nor could it alter the terms or examine its correctness or proprietary .
In the last case of Taugeer Ahmed (supra), apex Court affirmed that there could be no cavil with the proposition that the executing Court could not go behind the decree and would only be allowed to do so to examine whether the decree or pan thereof was executable or in-executable. It was held that only in such a situation was the Court empowered to refuse execution but that only to the extent of the in-executable part of the decree and was bound to proceed with the execution for the rest.
14. Having discussed the above two legal points involved in this review petition, when we revert to the facts of the case we find that not once, but twice the litigation in respect of the disputed land granted to deceased Arora before his death in the year 1933 had gone up to the level of apex Court and was finally decided in terms of the, two judgments of the apex Court dated 10-12-1991 and 18-6-1995. In such circumstances, the order of this Court dated 22-10-2009, regarding which now review has been sought is nothing but a reiteration of, the conclusions in the earlier two rounds of litigation. Thus, any request for review in substance will not be a simpliciter request for review of such order , but for the earlier judgmen ts too, which have been squarely made basis by the Court in its order dated 22-10-2009, as the only ground for dismissal of the appeal. It is important to reiterate that the Court dealing with a review petition and re-examining the order passed during execution proceedings, is constrained not only by the limited scope of exercise of jurisdiction of review , but also by the settled principle of law that the executing court cannot go behind the decree."
Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the apex Court titled as Muhammad Tariq Khan v. Khawaja Muhammad Jawad Asami and others (2007 SCMR 818). And lastly the Islamabad High Court in a judgment titled as Allied Bank Limited v . Messrs Fazal V egetable Ghee Mills and others (2019 CLD 441 ) has held that:- "14. Following the principles laid down in the Ghulam Muhammad case Supra, the august Supreme Court has consistently held that an executing Court cannot extend its jurisdiction to go behind the decree and question its correctness. Reference may be made to the cases "Syed Riaz Ahmad Shah and another v. Dayal Singh College Trust Society and another " [1972 SCMR 237], "Muhammad Ali and others v. Ghulam Sarwar and others " [1989 SCMR 640], "Mst. Naseem Akhtar and 04 others v. Shalimar General Insurance Company Ltd. and 02 others " [1994 SCMR 22], "Fakir Abdullah and others v. Government of Sindh through Secretary to Government of Sindh, Revenue Depar tment Sindh Secretariat and others " [PLD 2001 SC 131], "Allah Ditta v. Ahmed Ali Shah and others " [2003 SCMR 1202 ], "Rehmat Wazir and others v. Sher Afzal and others "
[2005 SCMR 668] and "Muhammad Ali v. Zakir Hussain" [PLD 2005 Lahore 331]. Two judgments have referred to exceptions to the established rule an executing court cannot look beyond the decree or look into the judgment, and the same are as follows:
(i) When the decree is silent regarding what property was the subject matter of execution, then only in such an eventuality the executing court can look into the judgment in order to find the said property . 2003 SCMR 1202 .
(ii) The executability of a decree can be questioned by the executing court if it is satisfied that (a) the decree is a nullity in the eyes of the law, (b) it has been passed by a Court having no jurisdictio n (c) the execution of the decree will not infringe the legal rights of the decree holder , if refused to be executed or (d) the decree has been passed in violation of any provision of law . PLD 2001 SC 131 ."
So far as objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that after the death of petitioner No.1 Hassan Ahmad Khan, his legal heirs are not liable to pay the maintenance allowance, suffice it to say that this argument is misconceived because admittedly the inherited property of the respondent No.1 is still in possession of the petitioners and the respondent has right to receive the maintenance as well as fruits of his owned share of land in shape of mesne profit as well till the possession of the land is given to him. The question regarding the payment of maintenance has already been answered by the learned appellate court while passing the impugned judgment and decree dated 23.12.2014 reproduced in para-54 above. When question confronted by this Court to the learned counsel for the petitioners whether the possession of the land owned by the respondent No.1 is handed over to him, he frankly admitted that possession of the land is still with the petitioners which has not yet been handed over to the respondent but in this regard, a separate litigation is pending. There is no any substance in the objection raised by the petitioner on the execution of the decree. The petitioners are duty bound to pay the maintenance allowance until and unless they are enjoying the possession of the land owned by Mohy-ud-Din father of the respondent No. 1. As such, the learned courts below rightly passed the impugned orders and no illegality has been committed.
7. As far as the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners that CPLA No.2728-L of 2015 is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan and the instant proceedings may be stayed whereas under Rule 20 of the Supreme Court Rules 1980, mere filing of a petition to appeal or an appeal shall not prevent execution of the decree or order appealed against. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in a case titled as Shah Wali v.
Ghulam Din alias Gaman and another (PLD 1966 SC 983) observed that the operation of a decree, passed by a Court of first instance is not automatically suspended, on the mere filing of an appeal therefrom held as under;- "It is well settled that the operation of a decree, passed by a Court of first instance is not automatically suspended, on the mere filing of an appeal therefrom This is also clear from Rule 5; Order XLI of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides in sub-rule (1) as follows:- "An appeal shall not operate as a stay of proceedings under a decree or order appealed from except so far as the Appellate Court may order , nor shall execution of a decree be stayed by reason only of an appeal having been preferred from the decree; but the Appellate Court may for suf ficient cause order stay of execution of such decree."
In another case titled as Messrs British Biscuits Company (Pvt.) Limited v. Messrs Atlas Investment Bank Limited (2005 CLD 674), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan observed that no stay order as granted by this Court, hence, the question proceedings does not arise held as under:-- "3 It is, however , to be noted that no stay order was granted by this Court, hence, the question of suspension of execution of proceedings does not arise...."
The same principle has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in a case titled as Khurshid Akbar v. Mian Manzur Ahmed and another (1982 SCMR 824) as well as in the case reported as Bakhtiar Ahmed v. Mst. Shamim Akhtar and other (2013 SCMR 5). As such, the learned executing court rightly proceeded with the matter and has not committed any illegality .
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to point out any illegal ity or material irregularity in the impugned orders passed by the learned Courts below and has also not identified any jurisdictional defect. The concurrent findings of fact are against the petitioners which do not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction in absence of any illegality or any other error of jurisdiction. Reliance is placed on the case titled as Muhammad Feroz and others v. Muhammad Jamaat Ali (2006 SCMR 1304 ), Rashid Ahmad v.
Said Ahmad (2007 SCMR 926), Asmatullah v. Amanat Ullah through LRs (PLD 2008 SC 155) and Mst.
Zaitoon Begum v . Nazar Hussain and another (2014 SCMR 1469 ).
9. In view of above, this civil revision is dismissed being devoid of any merits with no order as to costs.