KAMRAN HAYAT MIANKHEL, J. This revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 22.09.2020, passed by the learned Additional District Judge-V , Haripur , whereby the respondent No.1 filed appeal against order dated 14.07.2020 of the learned Executing Court, was accepted.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1 / plaintif f instituted family suit against the respondent No.2 / defendant, which was decreed in her favour vide judgment and decree dated 26.10.201 1. Thereafter decree holder / plaintif f filed execution petition before the learned executing court and during pendency of said petition, the learned executing court held that judgment debtor is residing at District Haripur and his properties are also lying there, hence, precept was sent to the family court at Haripur for satisfaction of decree. During the course of execution petition before the Judge Famil y Court-II, Haripur , NBW A was issued against the present petitioner being attorney for the judgment debtor . The petitioner appeared before the learned executing court and submitted an application for cancellation of warrant on the ground that he has got no concern with the execution petition. The learned executing court vide order dated 21.02.2017 held that present petitioner cannot be exonerated from his liabilities as he used to defend the case of judgment debtor before the learned trial court, first appellate court, High court and in apex court. The petitioner challenged the validity of order dated 21.02.2017 of the learned executing court vide revision petition No.3/CR, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 21.03.2017. Thereafter matter was sent back to the learned executing court, wherein again petitioner submitted an application for his exemption from execution proceedings on the ground that during the course of trial of family suit, he was not held as attorney of judgment debtor rather he recorded his statement as witness of judgment debtor . The learned executing court after hearing arguments, dismissed the application vide order dated 02.03.2019 and again feeling agreed, petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed by the learned appeal court vide judgment dated 16.09.2019 and again matter was sent to the learned executing court. The petitioner did not challenge the decision of appeal court, which has now got finality . The petitioner again submitted an application for his exemption from making payments in the execution of the decree and also sought his exoneration from execution of the decree on the ground that no decree has been passed against him, rather judgment and decree was passed against Aziz ur Rehman, hence, he is not judgment debtor . The learned executing court accepted the same vide order dated 14.07.2020. Not contented with the same, respondent No.1 preferred an appeal before the learned appeal court, which was accepted vide judgment dated 22.09.2020, hence, this revision petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was just an attorney for the respondent No.2 and decree has been passed against respondent No.2/judgment debtor and he has nothing to do with the execution of the decree and prayed for acceptance of instant revision petition.
4. As against that learned counsel for the respondent No.1/decree holder argued that as the petitioner was attorney for respondent No.2/ judgment debtor and contested the suit upto apex court and the decree is liable to satisfaction either through respondent No.2/judgment debtor or through attorney who had been throughout representing the judgment debtor in the suit and requested for dismissal of instant revision petition.
5. I have heard arguments of the learne d counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their valuable assistance.
6. The record reveals that this case has got chequered history and execution is pending against the judgment debtor since 2011 without fruitful result. The petitioner is the real brother and attorney of respondent No.2, who contested the suit filed by the decree holder/respondent No.1 upto apex court. The record further reveals that the petitioner earlier twice before learned executing court filed same like objections which were dismissed vide order dated 21.02.2017 and through order dated 02.03.2019 for exemption of making payment and exoneration from execution of the decree. The above orders were challenged through revision petition and appeal but the same were dismissed. The petitioner never challenged the same before this court, therefore, both the orders attained finality .
This is 3rd time a similar nature applicati on seeking same relief from the learned executing court has been made which was accepted by learned executing court but it was reversed by the learne d appeal court vide order dated 22.09.2020.
7. It is the duty of the courts to be aware of their authority and obligation to implement the decrees passed by them.
The judgment debtor is bound to satisfy the decree either himself or through attorney who has been throughout representing him in the suit. Somewhat similar view has been expressed in Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.3144 of 2003, decided on 26th April, 2004 (2004 SCMR 1352 ), wherein it was held that:- "It is a well-settled principle that once the decree is passed, the same cannot be allowed to be set at naught through the mala fide act of the defendant/judgment-debtor whereby he may propose to revoke the power of attorney . The Courts are aware of their authority and obligation to implement the decrees passed by them. The judgment debtor/Fazal-e-Haq is bound to satisfy the decree either himself or through the attorney , who has been throughout representing him in the suit."
8. So on the same analogy as expressed by the apex court, the petitioner is bound to satisfy the decree as attorney of the respondent No.2/ judgment debtor .
9. In the light of above, I agree with the findings recorded by the learned appe al court and find no illegality or material irregularity or jurisdictional defect in the impugned judgment calling for interference. Resultantly , this revision petition being devoid of force is hereby dismissed.