Atir Mahmood, J. Brief facts of the case are that predecessor of the respondents namely Falak Sher filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell regarding property detailed in the plaint which was ultimately decreed vide judgment and decree dated 03.05.2005.
2. The petitioner filed petition for execution of the decree with the prayer to issue warrants of possession. During the pendency of the execution petition, Falak Sher died on 10.08.2005 whereupon amended execution petition was filed on 24.09.2005.
3. The petitioner filed objection petition before learned executing court mainly praying that the suit property is joint one and warrants of possession could not be issued without partition. After contest by respondent side, the objection petition was dismissed by learned Civil Judge, Pakpattan vide order dated 16.01.2019. The petitioner filed appeal on 19.02.2019 against the said order . On 05.03.2019, the petitio ner withdrew the appeal with permission to file fresh one and re-filed the appeal on the same day, i.e. 05.03.2019. The said appeal was, however , dismissed by learned lower appellate court vide order dated 06.03.2019 being barred by time. Hence this revision petition has been filed.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. At the very onset, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted copy of roznamcha waqiati which shows that the possession of the suit property was handed over to the respondent through warrants of possession on 08.03.2019. When confronted with, learned counsel for the petitioner could not deny the said documents.
Therefore, the decree for satisfaction of which the execution petition was filed stands satisfied. According to learned counsel for the respondent, the file of execution petition after satisfaction of the decree has been consigned to record. In this view of the matter , this civil revision has become infructuous and is liable to dismissal on this sole ground.
6. Furthermore, the appeal was filed by the petitioner on 16.01.2019 against the decree holder Falak Sher who died on 10.08.2005 and amended execution petition incorporating LRs of Falak Sher was filed on 24.09.2005.
Admittedly , the petitioner has been appearing before the executing court to contest the execution petition, therefore, he was well within knowledge about the death of Falak Sher but he filed the appeal on 16.01.2019 against Falak Sher who was no more in this mortal world since 10.08.2005. It is settled law that no appeal lies against a dead person. Therefore, the time consumed during the pendency of the appeal against a dead person could not be condoned. As such, the appeal which was though filed after withdrawal of earlier one on 05.03.2019 will be considered as the first appeal and was badly barred by time as it was result of sheer negligence of the petitioner who was well within knowledge of factum of death of Falak Sher since 24.09.2005 when amended execution petition was filed but he filed the appeal on 16.01.2019 against him (dead person), therefore, it was rightly dismissed by learned lower appellate court. When the appeal was barred by time, this revision petition can also not be dealt with on merits.
7. In light of what has been discussed above, this civil revision is dismissed.