Through this petition, under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 the petitioner (father of the judgment-debtor/Respondent No. 6 and paternal grandfather of Respondents No. 5) has put a challenge to order , dated 20.09.2019, passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Depalpur (learned Executing Court) whereby the application filed by Respondents No. 4 & 5 (judgment-debtors) for cancellation of Mutation No. 931, dated 10.05.2017, attested in favour of the petitioner was accepted and the Objection Petition filed by him was dismissed. In addition thereto, the petition er has also assailed judgment, dated 09.11.2019, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Depalpur (learned Appellate Court) whereby the appeal filed by him against order , dated 20.09.2019, was dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that during pendency of proceedings before learned Executing Court the petitioner offered for deposit of reasonable amount out of outstanding amount of maintenance with the further assurance to pay future maintenance for the minors but without considering said request the leaned Executing Court dismissed his Objection Petition; that even today the petitioner is ready to deposit Rs. 1,00,000/- out of outstanding amount of maintenance in addition to paying future maintenance for the minors and that in ease the property of the petitioner is attached he would be deprived of his sole source of earning bread and butter .
3. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and scanning the documents, appended with this petition, I nave noted that decree in the suit filed by Respondents No. 4 & 5 was passed on 05.01.2017 whereas mutation in favour of the petitioner was got attested by the judgment-debtor/Respondent No. 6 (real son of the petitioner) in his favour on 10.05.2017, thus, the same falls within the definition of sham transaction which has rightly been cancelled by the learned Executing Court.
4. As far as readiness of the petitioner for partial payment of outstanding maintenance for the minors in addition to paying the future maintenance, is concer ned, suffice it to say that he is at liberty to satisfy the decree through his son/judgment-debtor and there is nothing impeding his way but the said fact cannot be used to set aside the impugned orders.
5. As per law laid down by the Apex Court of the country in the case of Farhat Jabeen v. Muhammad Safdar and others (2011 SCMR 1073 ) concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Courts below cannot I be upse t in Constitutional jurisdiction until and unless they are proved to be perverse or result of arbitrariness which is not the position in the case in hand.
6. For what has been noted above, I see no force in this petition which is dismissed in limine .