' This Execution Second Appeal, in a rent case, has arisen from an order, dated 9th April, 1977 of Ch. Fazal Karim, District Judge. Sargodha.
2. As ejectment petition brought by the respondent/landlord against the appellant-tenant was compromised before the Rent Controller by a joint statement of the parties of even date. It was agreed inter alia, that if a revision petition brought by the appellant tenant before the Settlement authorities was dismissed he will deliver the possession to the respondent-landlord within six months thereof or else he will be liable to be ejected forthwith and shall not be entitled to the refund of the rent which may have been deposited by him in the Court in the meantime.
3. The revision was accepted on 30th May, 1966 whereby the case was remanded to the Additional Settlement Commissioner for dealing with the appellants L. H. Form in accordance with the latest instructions. The respondent-landlord was able to get this decision set aside by an order, dated 23rd November, 1973 of the High Court in a Writ Petition. The appellant's Petition for Special Leave to Appeal failed before the Supreme Court on 3rd December, 1974.
4. After having gone through all these arduous proceedings, the respondent landlord applied on 15th January, 1975 for execution of the order of ejectment, dated 16th February, 1965. The appellant tenant objected to the execution on the ground that the order was not executable ; that the respondent was estopped by his conduct and that it was barred by time.
5. The Courts below repelled all these objections concurrently holding that the petition was within time.
6. By virtue of section 15 (7) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, as substituted by Ordinance IX of 1979, the order of the Controller, subject to the result of appeal, if any, was held to be final and it could not be called in question in any Court of law including the High Court by suit, appeal or otherwise. Subsection (8) added to the same provided further that subsection (7) (ibid) shall apply to every application under the Ordinance whether it was filed before or after the commencement of the said amendment.
7. It will be appreciated that the order now forming the subject-matter of this appeal was passed by the District Judge in a rent case and B it had become final by virtue of subsection (8) referred to above.
8. Even on merits, there is no substance in the objections. There was no warrant to contend that the limitation started from 30th May, 1966 when the appellant's revision was accepted. In fact, it had been subject of further litigation till the Supreme Court. The appellant's Petition for Special Leave to Appeal was dismissed on 15th December, 1974 by the Supreme Court affirming the order of the High Court, dated 23rd November, 1973. Obviously, the limitation started running from the order of the Supreme Court passed on 13th December, 1974. The execution petition was filed on 15th January, 1975 1. e. Within a month or so thereafter. The period for initial application for execution being 6 years from the final order, the petition in question was quite in time. Other objections related to the validity of the order of ejectment. Obviously, those could not be raised under section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code, if at all it applied. The question that could raised after the decree was passed, must fall within the purview of section 47, viz. It should relate to execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree. Its validity could not be allowed to be challenged under the garb of those proceedings. The objection that the order was not executable did not fall within the ambit of section 47 (ibid) and could not be entertained.
9. No other point was urged. The appeal is dismissed with costs throughout.
10. A copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned Court without delay for execution purposes.