This order will dispose of the Constitutional petition which impugns order dated 27.4.2019 and 21.5.2019 of the learned Executing Court.
2. Respondent No. 2 filed a Family Suit for recovery against the petitioner before the learned Judge Family Court, Multan, which was decreed. Execution proceedings were started wherein after adopting different processes to enforce the decree, the property of the judgment-debtor was attached and order for its auction was passed. The Court auctioneer vide report dated 22.2.2019 informed that the property had been auctioned. The proceedings Were at the stage of confirmation of auction when Saeed Ahmad son of Din Muhammad, who is father of the petitioner , filed an application to object to proceedings of auction on the plea that he was owner of the property which could not be auctioned. He however , made an offer to deposit the decretal amount in installments for which permission was statedly solicited. It appears that his intervention was declined on 19.4,2018. Saeed Ahmad thereafter filed W.P. No. 17245 of 2018 "Saeed .Ahmad v. Judge Family Court and two others" wherein Muhammad Anees, petitioner herein, and judgment-debtor in the decree was arrayed as Respondent No.3. In the said Writ petition order dated 09.11.2018 of the Executing Court whereby the request of Saeed Ahmad for the deposit of decretal amount was not accepted, was challenged. In the course of hearing of the said writ petition, it appears from the file that Saeed Ahmad, petitioner's father , reiterated his offer to pay of the decretal amount in installments and offered to deposit one-half of the decretal amount with the Executing Court forthwith, while 30 days' grace period to deposit the remaining one-half of the decretal amount was sought. The writ petition was disposed of the operative part being relevant for the present case reads as follows: "2. At the outset of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitione r is ready to make the payment of the decretal amount. He further submits that within 07 days from today , he will deposit of the decretal amount with the learned Executing Court and the remaining will be paid within 30 days from that date.
3. In view of above, let petitioner deposit of the decretal amount with, the learned Executing Court within 07 days from today and the remaining 1/2 within the next 30 days of the said partial payment. In case of the payment of the decretal amount is made within 07 days from today , the learned Executing Court shall defer the execution proceedings enabling to petitioner to satisfy the decree within next 30 days. In the case the necessary payment is not made within 07 days from today , the learned Executing Court shall ahead with the schedule of auction as contemplated in order dated 09.1 1.2018".
Saeed Ahmad, father of the petitioner did not honour his commitments and undertaking before this Court and failed to deposit the decretal amount as committed by him in result, the proceedings for the auction of the property were reactivated, auction was held, in result whereof highest bid was offered for Rs. 13,00,000/-which appears to have been approved by the Executing Court and third-party interest was created.
3. At this stage, the petitioner re-appeared on the surface, filed objections which were rejected by the learned Executing Court vide impugned order .
4. In the course of hearing; learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the property was worth Rs. 60,00,000/- which was sold for Rs. 13,00,000/- and this was not acceptable to the petitioner and that the Court auctioneer did not take adequate steps for publication to invite the highest number of bidders and that the petitioner was not issued a notice.
5. From the facts noted supra it is discernible that initially petitioner's father Saeed Ahmad challenged the auctio n proceedings on the plea that the property belonged him and that the judgment-debtor had nothing to do with the same and the decree being not against Saeed Ahmad, his property could not be auctioned. Of his own, he offered to deposit the decretal amount in installments and then the offer before this Court that the decretal amount will be deposited in two parts, one half forthwith and the remaining half of decretal amount within 30 days. In this view of the undertaking he was allowed to deposit of the decretal amount within 7 days from the date of order and to deposit the balance within 30 days, with the direction, to the Executing Court that the execution proceedings shall be deferred to enable the father of the petitioner to pay off the decretal amount as committed and in case of failure it was directed that the Executing Court should go ahead with the schedule of auction as contemplated in order dated 09.11.2018. Admittedly this undertaking was never honoured, the amount was never deposited, therefore, Executing Court lawfully proceeded to activate the execution process and thereafter rightly auctioned the property for the satisfaction of decree.
6. Curiously enough the petitioner thereafter filed objections to the auction by claiming himself to be the owner of the property . In this backdrop the learned Executing Court rightly observed that initially the petitioner's father had been following up the entire process, raising objections and now he had used the name of the petitioner . The Court even doubted that the petitioner had signed the objection petition. Without going into the question as to whether or not the objection petition was signed by the petitioner , it is otherwise manifest that the manner in which the petitioner and his father have attempted to hinder and obstruct the execution process smacks of process abuse.
Initially the father comes up to give an impression of best intention to satisfy the decree, seeks interim relief, fails to comply with the. commitment, and thereafter the judgment-debtor , his son shows up and starts the same process of objection de novo. Such tactics can never be countenanced nor approved. Decree having attained finality , petitioner being fully aware thereof, there was no reason for him not to satisfy the terms of the decree.
7. As regards the argument of auctioning the property at a lower price, no material has been placed on the record to support this version. Regarding objections to the publications and notice, the report of the local commission clearly reveals that wide publication was made, and all possible attempts to ensure maximum participation in the auction process were made, in result whereof seven bidders participated in the auction proceedings, the highest bidder having offered Rs. 13,00,000/-, the hammer was dropped and his bid was recommended; which was finally approved by the Court. It was also mentioned that notices were issued to the judgment-debtor and all concerned for the intended, auction. In this 'scenario, no error of law could be observed in the process of auctioning the property . The objection filed being misconceived were rightly rejected by the Executing Court.
8. For the reasons supra this petition is devoid of substance which is accordingly dismissed in limine .