SABIT ULLAH KHAN, J:- Through this regular first appeal filed u/s 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (C.P.C), the appellant has assailed the order of the learned Executing Court (Additional District Judge, Swat at Khwazakhela) dated 07.07.2025, whereby appellant's four objection petitions filed in execution proceedings were dismissed, on the ground that the same were frivolous, devoid of legal merits, unsupported by evidence, clearly intended to delay execution of valid decree passed in favor of the respondent / decree holder.
2. The facts are not in dispute that the respondent (decree holder) instituted a suit under Order XXXVII C.P.C seeking recovery of Rs.17,00,000/-, which culminated in a compromise deed dated 23.07.2024, whereby the respondent waived Rs. 2,00,000/- and a decree was passed for Rs.15,00,000/-, payable by the appellant/ judgment debtor within three months. The appellant instead of satisfying the decree, made partial payments totaling Rs.5,55,000/- and then proceeded to file a series of objection petitions. These objections included: i. An assertion of having paid Rs.4,50,000/- outside the Court; ii. A prayer to pay the decretal amount in instalments @ Rs.20,000/- per month; iii. A challenge to issuance of a show-cause notice; and iv. Further plea seeking deferment of the execution.
Upon consideration, the learned Executing Court dismissed all the four objections through the impugned consolidated order dated 07.07.2025, observing that the asserted facts in the objection petitions were unsupported by any admissible evidence rather the petitions were found to be a deliberate attempt to abuse the process of law.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. The core issue in the case is not one factual controversy but of systemic abuse of procedural law. It has become a pernicious trend in civil litigation that judgment debtors having suffered a decree, usually engage in stratagem of filing successive objections under order XXI C.P.C with no substance, whatsoever, aimed solely at thwarting the course of justice and rendering the decree holder remediless.
5. The most critical objection raised by the appellant was the alleged payment of Rs.4,50,000/- outside the Court to the respondent/ decree holder, however, the record is conspicuously silent on any documentary proof to substantiate this claim. Under order XXI Rule 1 C.P.C payment outside the Court must be demonstrated through bank transaction, postal order or written acknowledgement by the decree holder or his authorized agent. In the absence of any such admissible proof, the executing Court was fully justified in discarding the objection. Mere oral assertions, however passionately pleaded cannot take the plea of evidence in judicial proceedings. It may be mentioned here that the mode of payment, as alleged by the petitioner, was never directed by the learned Executing Court. It is a settled principle of law that when a thing is required to be done in a particular manner, it may be done in that manner and not otherwise.
6. With regard to the plea for installment based payment under order XX Rule 11 C.P.C, it is pertinent to note that such relief is not a matter of right and is conditional upon consent of the decree holder especially where the decree is based upon a compromise. In this case, the record available on file establishes that the appellant, at the time of passing of the decree, has agreed to pay the decretal amount within a period of three months as per his own statement recorded before the trial Court, so, after defaulting of this obligation without any justified reason, the appellant cannot seek indulgence contrary to the spirit and mandate of the compromise.
7. The Court is further constrained to have observed that the successive objections filed by the appellant bore all the hallmarks of calculated delay. The objections were neither grounded in admissible evidence nor supported by law. The pattern that emerges is of a litigant determined to obstruct execution of lawful decree by misusing the procedural mechanism as provided under order XXI C.P.C, which has never been designed to shelter a willful defaulter. More-so, the execution proceedings are not meant to provide a second inning to the judgment debtor rather it is a well- settled law that where a decree is final and binding upon the judgment-debtor, the executing Court must ensure its enforcement without undue delay or interference through frivolous objections of the judgment debtor. Reliance may be placed on the cases of "Ch. Ahmad Nawaz Vs. Province of Punjab through Land Acquisition Collector, Jhelum and others" (2015 SCMR 823)
"Irshad Masih Vs. Emanuel Masih" (2014 SCMR 1481), "Allah Ditta Vs. Ahmad Ali Shah" (2003 SCMR 1202), "Zarmash and others Vs. Haji Naeem Shah" (PLD 2022 Peshawar 33) "Said Ali Vs. Noor Ali" (2021 MLD 1023) and "Irshad Masih and others Vs. Emmanuel Masih and others" (2014 SCMR 1481) wherein it was held by the apex Court that the executing Court, under no circumstances, could go beyond the decree, the executing Court could not creatively interpret a decree, which had attained finality before the Supreme Cout to nullify its effect.
8. It is a well settled precept of law that execution is the fruit and culmination of a judicial proceedings and any deliberate obstruction of the execution of a valid decree is tantamount to frustrating the very purpose of adjudication; procedural law are intended to advance the cause of justice, not to obstruct it. The executing Court must come down with an iron hand on those who misuse the procural law to frustrate the ends of justice. Delay in execution undermines the authority of the Courts and breeds distrust in the system of administration of justice. Having examined the record and heard the learned counsel for the appellant, this Court finds that the impugned order of the learned Executing Court is in accordance with law, based upon a correct application of provision of order XXI C.P.C. The appellant has failed to establish any perversity in findings recorded by the learned Executing Court or any violation of any settled principle of law or of the decree lying before it for execution.
9. The Court deems it necessary to reiterate that procedural law is a servant of justice not its master. The use of procedural objection bereft of legal merit, constitutes abuse of process of law and must be dealt with sternly. Courts are under a duty to protect their process from being misused by those who, after losing on merit, seeks to paralyze execution by raising phantom disputes.
10. Now coming to the maintainability of the present appeal filed u/s 96 C.P.C against the impugned order. Upon careful examination of the record and consideration of the legal framework under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order dated 07.07.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge in execution proceedings, does not constitute a ' decree' as defined u/s 2 (2) C.P.C. The impugned order merely disposes of four objection petitions filed by the judgment-debtor during execution, which were rejected on the ground of being frivolous and unsupported by evidence. These objections, being interlocutory in nature and arising out of the matter under order XXI C.P.C particularly fall within the domain of execution and does not culminate in the adjudication of a `suit' or final determination of the rights that would amount to an original decree appealable u/s 96 C.P.C, therefore, such orders are not appealable u/s 96 C.P.C. The statutory scheme of C.P.0 makes it abundantly clear that execution related decision are governed separately u/s 47 and order XXI C.P.C, and appeal ability must be tested against the specific provisions relevant to execution.
11. It is well settled through authoritative pronouncements by the superior Courts that the order passed during execution proceedings including one rejecting objections without finally determining substantive rights as a deemed decree, is not appealable u/s 96 C.P.C. The remedy against such an order if it suffers from jurisdictional defect or legal infirmity lies either through a revision u/s 115 C.P.C or u/s 104 C.P.C, as such, the instant appeal u/s 96 C.P.C is legally misconceived and not maintainable. It is accordingly held to be incompetent. Reliance is placed on the case titled "Saleh Muhammad and 6 others Vs. Arz Muhammad and 9 others." (PLD 2015 Baluchistan 135), wherein it was held that: "Objections dismissed by executing Court. Orders from which appeal lies. Objection raised and decided was a question that related to execution, discharge or satisfaction of decree, which fell within ambit of S.47, C.P.C. and was an appealable order under S.104, C.P.C.
12. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. The appellant is directed to comply with the execution of decree and deposit the remaining decretal amount in terms of the modified show-cause notice issued by the learned Executing court. Needless to say, that no further adjournment or frivolous objection shall be entertained unless the decree is satisfied.