RAJA SHAKEEL AHMED, J. The Instant Revision Petition is directed by the petitioners against the judgment/order dated 15.10.2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Skardu, whereby the learned Additional District Judge, Skardu has accepted the civil first appeal of the present respondent by setting aside the judgment/order of the learned Executing Court Skardu.
2. Pithily, the facts of the case are that the present petitioners/plaintiffs had instituted a civil suit before the learned trial Court against the present respondent for declaration and recovery of possession of suit land as mentioned in the head note of the plaint.
3. During the proceedings before the learned trial Court, parties to the suit have entered into a compromise and on the basis of said compromise the learned trial Court passed a compromise decree between the compromising parties by making the compromise deed as integral part of the decree.
3. After obtaining the compromise decree, the present respondent/decree holder filed an execution petition before the learned Executing Court on 12.09.2018. It is pertinent to mention here that during proceedings in the execution petition, some applicants namely Muhammad Ali etc. had filed an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. seeking setting aside the order/ compromise decree dated 31.08.2015 passed by the learned trial Court. On filing of the said application, the present petitioners filed an objection petition before the Executing Court by contending that the applicants Muhammad Ali etc. have filed an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. for setting aside the compromise decree, therefore, the executing petition may be kept in sine die till disposal of the application under section 12(2), C.P.C. The present respondent contested the objections and the learned trial Court after hearing arguments on the objection petition, kept the execution petition filed by the present respondent in sine die till disposal of the petition under section 12(2), C.P.C. titled "Muhammad Ali and others v. Muhammad Bashir and others", vide judgment/ order dated 10.06.2019 passed in Execution Petition No.15/2018.
4. Feeling aggrieved with the said judgment/order, the present respondent/ decree holder preferred a civil first appeal before the 1st Appellate Court Skardu. The learned 1st Appellate Court after hearing arguments on behalf of both the parties, set aside the judgment/order of Executing Court with direction to the petitioners to pay Rs.12,000/- per month to the present respondent in the light of compromise decree. The present petitioners / judgment debtors being aggrieved from the judgment/order of 1st Appellate Court preferred the instant civil revision petition before this Court.
5. The Learned counsel for the Petitioners argued that the judgment/order of the learned 1st Appellate Court is against the facts and record of the case, hence, the impugned judgment/order is not maintainable. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that impugned judgment/order is based on misconception of facts, therefore, the impugned judgment/order is not maintainable and liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the impugned judgment/order is arbitrary without applying judicial principle, hence the impugned judgment/order is not maintainable and liable to be set aside. Lastly the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the learned 1st Appellate Court has failed to exercise the vested jurisdiction and committed material irregularity while setting aside the impugned the judgment/order of the learned Executing Court, hence the judgment/order is liable to be set aside in acceptance of the instant Civil Revision petition to meet the ends of justice.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/decree holder has strongly defended the judgment/order of the learned 1st Appellate Court by asserting that the impugned judgment/ order is result of correct appreciation of law and facts on record, hence, the instant petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. He contended that the dispute between the parties have been settled on the basis of compromise and a compromise decree has been passed by the trial court on the consent of the parties, therefore, the instant petition has no merit, hence, liable to be dismissed. He further submitted that the compromise decree under execution cannot be kept in sine die without any legal justification, therefore, the instant petition has no merit, hence, liable to be dismissed to meet the ends of justice.
7. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Parties and have also perused the record available on file.
8. It is on record that petitioners Muhammad All etc. had filed an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. against the present petitioners and respondent seeking cancellation of compromise decree.
In Para 4 of the said application the petitioners of application under Section 12(2), C.P.C. have categorically alleged, that the respondents in collusion with each other have filed a suit titled Iftikhar Ahmed etc. versus Bashir Ahmed etc. and on 31-08-2015 have obtained a decree on the basis fraud, mis-representation and suppressing the facts in court, which is against the rights of the petitioner, instead of denying the facts of Para 4 of application under Section 12(2), the present petitioner in his replication to the application admitted the facts alleged in the said Para 4. After admission of the present petitioner that the decree dated 31-08-2015 is obtained on the basis of mala fide and not inclusion of petitioner of application under Section 12(2), C.P.C. in the suit despite being LRs of Mst. Ruzia and entitled to inherit their Shari share, therefore, the judgment/order of the learned trial Court passed in execution petition is result of correct appreciation of law and material available on file.
9. The nutshell of the above discussion is that, the instant petition is allowed and the impugned judgment/order dated 15.10.2019 passed by Addl. District Judge, Skardu is hereby set aside and the judgment/order dated 10.06.2019 passed by the learned Executing Court in Execution Petition No.15/ 2018 stands maintained. The learned Executing Court/ trial Court is directed to dispose of the petition filed under section 12(2), C.P.C. filed by petitioners Muhammad Ali etc. within three months.
Parties are left to bear their own costs. File