RAJA SHAKEEL AHMAD, J.---The instant civil 1st appeal is directed against. the judgment/order (hereinaft er called impugned judgment) dated 17/10/2019, passed by the learned District Judge/ Executing Court Gilgit in Ex.
Petition No. 04/2019, wherein the learned Judge directed the appellants to deposit the decretal amount in view of Order XXI, Rule 23-A, C.P .C.
2. Initially , the respondents/ petitioners/Decree Holders filed a reference petition under Section 18 Land Acquisition Act before the District/ Referee Judge for disposal on merits. The Referee Judge Gilgit accepted the petition/ reference in favour of respondent/ petitioners/Decree-Holders as prayed for vide judgment dated 14/06/1999. Being aggrieved by the judgment the present appellants/respondent/Judgment debtors filed Appeal before this Court and this court remanded the case back to Refe ree Judge vide Judgment/Order date 25.10.2001, with the direction to try the matter afresh on newly added issues framed by this Court. The trial Court/ Referee Court took cognizance of the matter afresh on 04/03/2002 and recorded evidence of the petitioners in support of additional issues while the respondents/ present appellants failed to adduce their evidence and pursue the case and the referee judge proceeded them ex parte and the matter was fixed for final arguments, but the same could not be heard for 07 years. On the failure and refusal of the present petitioners to argue the case the learned Referee Judge Gilgit proceeded against the present appellants/judgment-debtors and passed Judgment dated 31.05.2013.
3. The judgment of the Learned Referee Court Gilgit dated 31.05.2013 was challenged before this Court in C.F.A No. 07/2015, after lapse of one year and three months and condonation application of the appellants along with the appeal was also defective, wherein the petitioners/appellants have failed to calculate the delay in filing of appeal.
This Court vide its judgment dated 28/02/2017 dismissed the appeal of appellants declaring the same hopelessly time barred and devoid of any merit. Through C.P.L.A. No.120/2017, the appellants assailed the judgment of this court dated 28.02.2017 before the August Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan but the same was also barred by time for a period of three months and Twenty-Seven Days. The August Supreme Appellate Court Vide Judgment Dated 17.05.18 dismissed tie C.P .L.A. No. 120 of 2017 being barred by time.
4. After conclusion of the matter between the parties up to the August Supreme Appellate Court the Petitioner/ Respondents/Decree-Holders filed the Execution Petition No. 04/2019 before the District Court Gilgit/Executing Court. The Executing Court took the cognizance of the matter on 26.03.2019 and issued notice to the present appellants/judgment-debtors in pursuance of execution of decree. The appellants/ judgment-debtors filed objection to the execution of decree under section 47, C.P.C. on 20,06.2016, which are placed on file. On 17/10/19 on the submission of DA for decision of his objections to the execution of decree before issuance of warrant of arrest or warrant of attachment against the judgem ent-debtors/ appellants, the learned executing Court allowed the request of the learned DA subject to deposit of decretal amount in view of Order XXI, Rule 23-A, C.P.C. with further direction to learned DA and learned LA for Judgment debtors No.4 to comply with the order regarding deposit of decretal amount.
5. Being aggrieved by the order of the Executing Court dated 17.10.2019 the Judgement-debtors/appellants have filed the instant appeal bearing No. C.S.A. 44 of 2019 and prayed for setting aside the judgment/order of learned Executing Court. The prayer part of memo of appeal is reproduced as under:- "It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this Honorable Court may be pleased to set aside the impugned judgment/order dated 17.10.2019 passed by the Executing Court Gilgit and after setting aside the impugned order/judgment the Executing Court may direct to decide the objection petition on merits according to law and procedure to ends of justice, law and equity ."
6. The learned Additional A.G. contended that the judgment/order of learned Executing Court is not maintainable under the law, as the learned lower court have not follow the mandatory provisions of law. The learned Executing Court passed the impugned order by hasty and hurry manner , which cause great injustice towards appellants. The learned D.A.G. further contended that the Executing Court has failed to exercise his powers and exercised the same against the provisions of law and passed the impugned order without any cogent seasons. The impugned order is against the basic principle of law and equity , the impugned order is incor rect, baseless, against the facts and premature. The learned A.A.G. continued to argue that the impugned order is ambiguous, miss conceived, absurd, unfounded, sketchy and flimsy hence not maintainable and liable to be set aside. Lastly , the learned AAG, prayed mentioned supra.
7. Adversely , the learned counsel. for respondents/Decree-Holders vehemently opposed the contention of learned A.A.G. and contended that the Executin g Court rightly passed the judgment/or der as the same is mandatory requirement of law and the Executing Court was bound to comply with provision of law, which is mandatory in nature. No any illegality or irregularity has been committed by the Executing Court. The learned counsel further argued that the appellants/judgment-deb tors are bound to execute the decree passed by the trial court and maintained up to the August Supreme Appellate Court but the appellants'/judgem ent-debtors being Government authorities, are misusing their power and want to interfere in execution of decree by submitting frivolous application and appeals before the executing court as well as before this Hon'ble Court. The impugned judgment/ order being based on mandatory provision of law is not call for any interference of this Hon'ble Court to alter, amend, vary or set aside the same. The learned counsel for respondents further argued that present appeal is not maintainable because the impugned order is not appealable as no appeal against Order XXI, Rule 23-A is provided in the Civil Procedure Code. Finally , the learned counsel for respondents/ Decree-Holders prayed for dismissal of the appeal in hand.
8. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case minutely . I have also perused the _ objection petition under section 47, C.P.C., filed by the appellants before the Executing Court wherein the main asser tion made by the appellants is that judgement/decree is not executable, hence not maintainable and liable to be rejected.
9. The question of determination in the case is, whether the judgment-debtor may be asked either to deposit decretal amount in the Court or furnish security for its payment in terms of or Rule 23-A of Order XXI, C.P.C. before conclusion of trial of objections to the execution of decree under section 47, C.P.C. Admittedly , the learned Executing Court passed the impugned order in view of Order XXI, Rule 23-A, C.P.C. hence it is appropriate to reproduce the same as under; "Rule 23-A - Deposit of Decretal Amount, etc.: - an objection by the judgment-debtor to the execution of a decree shall not be considered by the Court unless? , a. In the case of decree for the payment of money , he either deposits the decretal amount in Court or furnishes security for the payment; and b. In the case of any other decree, he furnishes security for the due performance of the decree."
This rule requires deposit of decretal amount in Court or furnishing security of its payment. The language of rule is very clear and shall have application only where the judgment debtor object to the decree in the execution. The object of this rule is to prevent and preclude delays in expeditious disposal of the executions of decrees caused by baseless petitions.
10. The provisions of Order XXI, C.P.C. as it relates to the objections to, the execution of decree are to be read in conjunction with the provision of section 47, C.P.C. which lays down the scope of objections that can be raise in execution. Section 47 empowers the Executing Court to determine questions relating to, execution, discharge and satisfaction of decree. It bars separate suit where question is within the scope of the section that a court is barred from considering such objections, unless judgment debtor makes compliance of Rule 23-A of Order XXI, C.P.C., by depositing the decretal amount in court or furnishes security for its payment.
Bare reading of section 47, C.P.C. and scheme in which it is place in the Code of Civil. Procedure, it is quite clear that section 47, C.P.C postulates the determination of question relating to execution of decree by court which is executing decree. The obvious intention of legislature is to exclude and bar the right to file a separate suit as to questions inter alia relating to the execution of decree. In this view of the matter it is patently obvious that the provisions of Order XXI, C.P.C., which also relate to the execution of decree and provide for detail procedure in that regard are to be read with section 47, C.P.C. Rules 22 and 23-A pertains to the procedure for disposal of execution application. The objections as to the non-executability of decree obviously relates to execution of decree and a Court would clearly be barred from considering the same under the provisions of Rule 23-A unless the judgment debtor deposits the decretal amount in the court or furnishes the security for its payment.
11. From perusal of the record in the light of relevant law, grounds taken in the appeal and arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, I found that impugned Order passed by the Executing Court is just proper and within the four corners of law. The appellant failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order therefore same does not call for any interference, hence maintained accordingly .
12. The order passed in view of the Order 23-A, C.P.C. is not appealable hence the appeal in hand is also not maintainable.
13. For the forgoing reasons, instant appeal stands dismissed being merit less and non-maintainable under the law and the annexed Civil Miscellaneous No. 550 of 2019 is disposed of accordingly .
14. Record and proceedings of Executing Court/Referee Court be sent to Executing Court along with the certified copy of this judgment. File.