SHUJAAT ALI KHAN, J. -- Shorn of unnecessary details the petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell which was decreed through judgment & decree, dated 18.05.1994. Thereafter, the petitioner filed execution petition for satisfaction of the decree on 28.10.2011. In part performance of the decree sale-deed was executed in favour of the petitioner, however, when he made move for possession respondents No. 4 to 8 filed objection petition, on 30.04.2012. The learned Executing Court dismissed the objection petition, vide order, dated 16.10.2012 against which respondents No. 4 to 8 filed an appeal which was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, Bahawalpur through judgment, dated 07.06.2014, and directed the learned Executing Court to decide fate of the objection petition after recording evidence of the parties. Aggrieved by judgment, dated 07.06.2014, the petitioner has filed the instant petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Appellate Court did not consider that respondents No. 4 to 8 agitated their grievance independently through a civil suit which was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge whose findings remained intact upto the apex Court of the Country, thus, they had no locus-standi to file objection petition; that since the suit for specific performance was between the petitioner and the vendor respondents No. 4 to 8 did not fall within the definition of aggrieved person especially in the execution proceedings; that according to section 15 of the Limitation Act, 1908 while condoning period of limitation for execution petition period during which there was an injunctive order by a Court of law is to be scored off and if the limitation is reckoned while relying upon the principle envisaged under Section 15 ibid the execution petition was within time; that as a matter of fact it was second execution petition, thus, the same being continuation of earlier one was not hit by the law of limitation; that mala fide on the part of be respondents is manifest from the fact that after having remained unsuccessful upto the apex Court of the country they filed application under Section 12(2), C.P.C. challenging vires of judgment & decree passed in favour of the petitioner but the same was dismissed by, the learned Civil Judge; that unclean character of respondents No. 4 to 8 is also manifest from the fact that the ground agitated in the objection petition and those encapsulated in the application filed under Section 12(2), C.P.C. are identical. Relies on Maulvi Abdul Qayyum v. Syed Ali Asghar Shah and 5 others (1992 SCMR 241), Government of Balochistan, Industries Department v. Muhammad Yousaf and others (2018 CLC 396) and Muhammad Qasim v. Abdul Sattar and another (2009 MLD 1484).
3. Makhdoom Kaleem Ullah Hashmi, Advo cate representing respondents No. .1 to 3 has supported the contentions urged by learned counsel for the petitioner .
4. Syed Muhammad Ibrahim Bukhari, Advocate representing respondents No. 4 to 8 submits that since the petitioner has not come to this Court with clean hands he is not entitled to any equitable relief; that since there was no injunctive order against the decree passed in favour of the petitioner , in the year 1994, on the basis of compromise the period of limitation started from the date of passing of the decree; that as a matter of fact there were two independent limbs of litigation, one ended in the year 1994 on the basis of compromise whereas the second filed by Mst. Irshad Batool, challenging sale-deed executed in favour of the petitioner was contested before different forums by the respective partie s; that plea of learned counsel for the petitioner that it was second execution petition is not worth considerat ion as in the body of the execution petition the petitioner has mentioned that no earlier execution petition was filed; that the provisions of Section 15 ibid only comes into play when after passing of decree there remains an injunctive order in the field but learned counsel for the petitioner despite addressing the Court at considerable length has failed to point out that any appeal/revision was filed against the decree passed on the basis of compromise; that the respondents have clarified the factual as well as legal position in their objection petition which was to be decided by the learned Executing Court after framing requisite Issues, thus, findings of the learned Appellate Court are immune from interference by this Court; that dismissal of the application filed by the respondents under Section 12(2), C.P.C. cannot be pressed into service to knock out the respondents in these proceedings as the revision petition filed' by them against the order passed by the Court of first instance is pending adjudication before the revisional forum; that height of illegal approach on the part of the learned Civil Judge, 1st Class who decided the application filed by the respondents under Section 12(2), C.P.C. is manifest from the fact that though decree was passed by the learned Senior ,Civil Judge but the application has been heard and decided by some other Court; that it is established preposition of law that the application filed under Section 12(2) is to be heard and decided by the same Court which passed the decree. Relies on Bakhtiar Ahmed v. Mst. Shamim Akhtar and others (2013 SCMR 5), Mahboob Khan v. Hassan Khpn Durrani (PLD 1990 SC 778) and Hakim Muhammad Buta and another v . Habib Ahmad and others (PLD 1985 SC 153 ).
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also gone through the documents annexed with this petition as well as the case-law cited at the bar .
6. It is admitted position that the decre e in favour of the petitioner was passe d on 18.05.1994 whereas the execution petition out of which present petition has stemmed was filed by the petitioner on 27.10.201 1. The period of limitation provided to file an execution petition for satisfaction is six years from the date of decree whereas the petitioner filed the execution petition after more than 17 years after passing of the decree.
7. As per section 15 of the Limitation Act, 1908 the period during which an injunctive order was issued by a higher forum against the decree execution whereof was sought, is to be scored off. Insofar as the case in hand is concerned, despite repeated queries learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to refer to any injunctive order passed by any Court of law interrupting the law of limitation against executi on of judgment & decree, dated 18.05.1994, thus, the allowance as provided under Section 15 ibid cannot be granted to the petitioner .
8. While addressing the Court learned counsel for the petitioner emphatically argued that after dismissal of respondents' application filed under Section 12(2), C.P.C. with same grounds their objection petition was rightly dismissed by the learned Executing Court, The said assertion of learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be given any weightage as according to learned counsel for the respondents the revision petition filed by the respondents against orders of the Court of first instance is pending adjudication before the revisional Court which fact has also been af firmed by learned counsel for the petitioner .
9. Insofar as the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner qua locus-standi of the respondents to file objection petition, is concerned, suffice it to note that as the learned Appellate Court has referred the matter back to the Trial Court the petitioner would be at liberty to raise such objection before the said forum and I am consciously restraining myself to comment upon that limb of the matter lest it may prejudice the case of either party before the said forum.
10. During the course of arguments learned counsel for the petitioner candidly argued that after dismissal of their suit upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan the respondents have no locus-standi to file the objection petition.
In this regard, I am of the view that as the respondents are admittedly in possession of the land qua which a decree has been passed in favour of the petitioner , their locus-standi to file the objection petition shall be decided by the Court of first instance while deciding the objection petition in line with the order passed by the learned Appellate Court.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner , with a view to cross the hurdle of limitation took clear cut stance that it was second execution petition out of which the present petition has emanated. A perusal of the execution petition shows that it was shown as first execution petition. Further , despite repeated queries, learned counsel for the petitioner has faded to refer to any document tending to show that some earlier execution petition was filed by the petitioner .
12. So far as the case-law cited by learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, suffice it to note that the same is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case inasmuch as in the case of Maulvi Abdul Qayyum (Supra) the apex Court of the country held that until and unless the final verdict has not been rendered a decree passed in favour of a party is executable but insofar as the case in hand is concerned as the judgment & decree dated 18.05.1994 was not assailed any further, the referred case is inapplicable. In the case of Government of Balochistan, Industries Department (Supra) the learned Division Bench of the Balochistan High Court held that the second execution petition was maintainable after decision of the matter by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan and the period during which the injunctive order issued by the apex Court of the Country remain in field, was to be excluded while calculating the period of limitation for execution petition whereas in the instant matter the judgment & decree dated 18.05.1994 having not been challenged any further the period of limitation started ,, from the date of passing thereof. Now taking up the case of Muhammad Qasim (Supra) this Court dilated upon the question relating to different provisions of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 with reference to part performance of the contract by the vendor which is not the position in the case in hand.
13.For what has been discussed above, instant petition is hereby dismissed with a direction to the learned Executing Court to decide fate of the ,objection petition filed by respondents No. 4 to 8, by or before 30th November , 2018 positively under intimation to this Court through Deputy Registrar (Judicial).