ABDUL HAMEED BALOCH, J. Through this petition the petitioner has prayed as under: "It is, therefore, respectfully most respectfully prayed that keeping into consideration the above facts and material available on record. this Hon'ble Court may graciously he set-aside both the impugned order dated 8-6-2021 and impugned order dated 22-9-2021 passed by the learned trial court/executing court and appellate court respectively and/further prayed to draw up the decree sheet in accordance of judgment dated 12-5-2018 with other relief in the interest of justice and equity."
2. Brief facts leading to file the instant revision petition are that the respondent/plaintiff filed a "Suit for Declaration and Permanent Injunction" against the petitioner before the Judicial Magistrate Karezat at Khanozai with powers of Civil Judge (trial Court). The defendants Nos. 1 to 14 filed written statement stated that the parties are not at issue over above property bearing Khasra Nos.712 to 718 (subject matter). The trial court pronounced the judgment dated 12th May, 2018 under Order XV, Rule 1, C.P.C., operating para whereof reads as under: "4. Whereas it has been cleared above that the defendants have no concern with the said above property and they have also not made no interference in the same, so it revealed that parties are not at issue on any question of law or of fact. Under these circumstances, Judgment is announced in the case according to Order XV, Rule 1, C.P.C. The defendants are directed and permanently restrained from making any kind of interference in the peacefull possession and creating hindrance in the cultivation and construction over the property bearing Khasras Nos. 712, 713, 714, 715, 716, 717, 718, (7 pieces) measuring 10 Rod 22 Pole Muhal Sur Ghund Shamozai Moza Kudeen Tappa Murgha Tehsil Nana Sahib District Pishin. With these observations and directions, the suit of plaintiff is accordingly disposed of."
The plaintiff filed execution application before the trial Court/Executing Court. The executing Court vide order dated 08.06.2021 rejected the application. The petitioner being aggrieved of the order dated 08.06.2021 preferred an appeal before the appellate Additional District Judge Khanozai, which was dismissed vide order dated 22.09.2020. Hence this petition.
3. Heard. Record perused. The record depict that the trial court pronounced the judgment under Order XV, Rule 1, C.P.C. and defendants were permanently restrained from interference in the peaceful possession of plaintiff. Under section 2 clause 9 of the C.P.C. the word judgment has been defined as under: "(9) "Judgment" means the statement given by the judge on the grounds of a decree or order."
4. From the plain reading of the above definition it appears judicial decision of a judge. The order and the judgment has been defined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan on the case of Ghulam Hussain Shah vs. Ghulam Muhammad PLD 1974 SC 344, as under: "If the words "order" and 'judgment' are considered in this light in my opinion, they carry the same meaning. According to Shorter Oxford Dictionary, in law, the word "order" means 'a decision of a Court or Judge made or entered in writing. According to the same Dictionary, the meaning of the word "judgment" is 'a judicial decision or order in Court.' If these; meanings are taken into consideration, it is quite clear that the two words are inter-changeable. In the past this Court has considered the question whether the orders of the High Court in Letters Patent Appeals are judgments or not and it has held that such orders are judgments. Reference in this connection may be made to Mumtaz Khan v. Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner (PLD 1966 SC 276). It was held in that case that in the general connotation of the term, a "judgment" would merely mean a "judicial determination or a decision of a Court" and it could be interlocutory or final. In that case, the learned Single Judge of the High Court had actually passed an order which finally decided the rights of the parties in respect of an evacuee house. It was held to be a judgment in every term of the case. It was held that it was clearly rendered in a proceeding of a civil nature as rights of property were adjudicated upon.
It will be further noticed that in another case, the report of the Election Tribunal was considered by this Court as "Judgment" in Muhammad Saeed and others v. Elections Petitions Tribunal, West Pakistan and others (PLD 1957 SC (Pak.) 91). It was held as under:- "The Election Petitions Tribunal has functioned as a Court and that Its report is a judgment in every sense necessary for the exercise of this Court's power to entertain appeal under Article 160 of the Constitution."
On this view of the matter I am of the opinion that the word "judgment" covers order and the word 'order' also means in general sense a judgment. In these circumstances, the time taken for obtaining a copy of a judgment was rightly excluded in the case of Wali Muhammad and others v. Wali Muhammad and others."
5. It appeared from the above, the judgment means judicial decision of judge, it needs not necessarily deal with the all matter in issue in a suit but only those issues, decision of which has the effect either adjudication all matter in controversy or result in a final disposal of the suit. Reference may be made to the case of Al Noor (Pvt.) Ltd. through authorized person v. Trading Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. through Chief Executive/Director (PLD 2015 Sindh 451).
6. As per record the defendants agreed to the contention of the plaintiff under term of Order XV, Rule 1, C.P.C. The trial court has passed the judgment as per above term. The court is under legal obligation to implement the judgment in letter and spirit. The court decided the suit in favour of the plaintiff with direction to defendant not to interfere in the case property. In case of interference the plaintiffs have left no option other than to knock the door of court for implementation of the judgment. Under the Code of Civil Procedure there is no distinction between the judgment on admission or judgment on merit. The terms judgment does not mean only dispose the matter but determine the right of a party.
In view of above, the petition is allowed. The orders dated 08.06.2021 and 22.09.2021, respectively passed by the Judicial Magistrate/Civil Judge Khanozai and Additional District Judge Khanozai set- aside. The case is remanded to the trial court with direction to decide the application afresh.