S M ATTIQUE SHAH, J. Through instant petition, petitioner has challenged the impugned findings dated 09.02.2022 vide which the learned appeal court dismissed the appeal of the petitioner by maintaining order dated 07.06.2021 of the learned executing court/Family Court-I, Peshawar.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1 filed a Family Suit No.533/FC dated 19.11.2011, which was allowed by the learned Judge Family Court vide judgment dated 11.09.2013, whereafter she filed an execution petition against respondent No.2 on 19.11.2013 and; during the pendency of the said proceedings, the learned Judge Family Court issued an attachment notice in respect of the house in question, which was objected by the petitioner by filing objection petition before the learned executing court and; after recording pro and contra evidence of the parties, the same was dismissed vide order dated 07.06.2021 by the learned executing court, which findings were also maintained by the learned appeal court while dismissing the appeal of the petitioner vide impugned judgment dated 09.02.2022.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. The stance of the petitioner is that the house in question was originally in the ownership of respondent No.2, which was purchased from him by the petitioner in the year 2006, and in this respect, a general power of attorney was also executed in his favour by the respondent No.2; that subsequently, the house was also transferred in favour of the petitioner through Mutation No.3148 attested on 26.09.2013, whereas the attachment notice was issued on 19.11.2013, therefore, the said notice is illegal, being against the evidence and material available on record of the case.
5. Record shows that the marriage between respondents Nos.1 and 2 was solemnized on 14.04.2007, however, upon cracks in their relationship, respondent No.1 filed a suit for recovery of dower which was decreed in her favour. During the execution proceedings, it transpired that the property given to respondent No.1 as dower by respondent No.2 was having no existence at all. Therefore, the learned executing court issued the order of attachment of the house in question as an alternative.
However, in order to deprive respondent No.1 of the fruits of the decree passed in her favour, the petitioner in collusion with respondent No.2 claimed the same his ownership, which clearly shows that a deliberate attempt has been made by the petitioner and respondent No.2 to deprive the respondent No.1 from the benefits of the decree granted in her favour. Moreso, it is not appealable to a prudent mind that the house in question was purchased by the petitioner in the year 2006 but, despite that, he did not transfer the same till the year 2013, which is indeed behind comprehension.
Besides, the alleged stance also could not be proved by the petitioner through cogent, reliable, and; confidence-inspiring evidence. Moreso, it is worth mentioning that the matter between the parties was finally decided by the august Apex Court through its judgment date 11.09.2013, whereas the alleged mutation was shown attested in favour of the petitioner on 26.09.2013 after the decision of the august apex Court, which certainly speaks volumes qua the conduct of the petitioner and; respondent No.2. Another pronounced aspect of the case is that right from the date of institution of the suit of the respondent No.1 i.e. 19.01.2011 till the final decision of the case by the august apex Court on 11.09.2013, the address of the respondent No.2 had been mentioned that of the house in question. So much so that respondent No.2 on affidavit in his W.P.No.3307/2011 titled Zubair Ahmad v. Mst. Sumera and others had mentioned the same address, which further belies the stance of the petitioner regarding the purchase of the house in question in the year 2006. It is obvious from the record that when respondent No.2 failed in all his efforts to deprive respondent No.1 of her dower, then, he disappeared himself, and; the present petitioner who is the brother-in-law of respondent No.2 came forward and filed instant frivolous objection petition to create to further hurdles for respondent No.1 in getting benefits of the decree passed in her favour way back in the year 2011. It is certainly high time to deal with false and frivolous litigation with an iron hand as on one hand it is dragging innocent persons into the courts and; on another hand, it is wasting precious time of the courts. Indeed, courts of law are guardians of the rights and; interests of the common man and are under the bounden duty and; obligation to protect the same at any costs.
6. This court could not notice any illegality or irregularity, misreading, and non-reading of the evidence and material available on record so committed by the learned courts below at the time of rendering the impugned findings, therefore, the same is not open to any interference by this court in its revisional jurisdiction, which is otherwise very limited in its scope. Hence, the instant revision petition is dismissed; being meritless along with the CM with a cost of rupees one lac, which shall be recovered and; paid to respondent No.1 by the learned executing court.