' The petitioner who is judgment-debtor by means of this Constitutional petition has assailed validity of order dated 5-11-1984 of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Lahore whereby he dismissed his application under section 151, C.P.C. read with sections 21, 108 and 115 of the Evidence Act for examination of Mr. Muhammad Asaf, Advocate, counsel for the decree-holder and the brother of the decree-holder as witnesses and order dated 19-11-1984 of the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore whereby he dismissed his revision petition against the aforesaid order.
2. The facts in brief giving rise to this petition are that the Supreme Court of Pakistan vide judgment dated 14-5-1964 accepted appeal filed by the decree-holder against the judgment of the High Court dated 27-3-1964 and awarded costs to the decree-holder throughout. The decree-holder allegedly filed an application for execution of the decree of costs on 23-9-1967 and thereafter duplicate thereof on 24-2-1969 for the recovery of Rs. 2,223.95 against the petitioner. During the pendency of the execution proceedings number of applications were filed and disposed of. Lastly on 20-4-1984 the judgment-debtor filed the aforesaid application, out of which the impugned order had arisen. The petitioner in the application averred that Mr. Muhammad Asaf, Advocate, counsel for the decree-holder made statement on 12-7-1969 in the Court of Mr. Muhammad Naseem, the then Civil Judge in another case entitled "Mr. Muhammad Ashraf Falahi v. Mr. E.A.
Evans" to the effect, that respondent E.A. Evans had vacated the possession of the disputed property and left Pakistan. He did not meet him personally after 21-5-1969 and received neither telephonic call nor any letter from him, as such, question arose as to whether Mr. Muhammad Asaf, Advocate was yet a competent counsel for the decree-holder to prosecute the execution proceedings on his behalf. It was also averred in the petition that Mr. Muhammad Asaf, Advocate, counsel for the decree-holder has made reference about the brother of the decree-holder as if he was residing in Lahore, therefore, prayed for examination of Mr. Muhammad Asaf, Advocate and decree-holder's brother as Court witnesses.
' The application was, however, dismissed by the Senior Civil Judge, Lahore on 5-11-1984, holding that the statement of the counsel in one case was inapplicable to proceedings in another case unless so specified; and further that the power-of-attorney executed in favour of the counsel was operative unless revoked. In consequence he directed the judgment-debtor to deposit the decretal amount within a fortnight, failing which the process for the recovery thereof would continue, in accordance with law.
' The petitioner being aggrieved against the above-mentioned order filed revision petition which was dismissed on 19-11-1984 by the learned Addl. District Judge, Lahore on the ground that the same was incompetent under section 115, C.P.C. being directed against order not constituting "a case decided". Hence this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the statement made by Mr. Muhammad Asaf, Advocate on 12-7-1969 was applicable under section 21 of the Evidence Act; as Res jestae; to all the cases pending at that time between the petitioner and the decree-holder. It was further stated that when Mr. Muhammad Asaf, Advocate had no instructions in the case where he had made such a statement he could have no instructions to prosecute the execution proceedings particularly because he had no contact with the decree-holder after 21-5-1969. It was submitted that in these circumstances, it was necessary for the learned lower Courts to have examined Mr. Muhammad Asaf, Advocate and decree-holder's brother as Court witnesses, for ascertaining as to whether the learned counsel had instructions to pursue the execution proceedings on behalf of the decree- holder. He relied on Raheem Bakhsh v. Nathu Bibi and others PLD 1951 Pesh. 61, Hail Ilahi Bakhsh and others v. Mst. Nawab Bibi PLD 1966 (W.P.) Lah. 664 and Ghulam Nabi Corporation Ltd. v. Khan Iftikhar Hussain Khan of Mamdot PLD 1962; (W.P.) Lah. 370) in support of his submissions.
4. At the limine stage of this case, I sent for Mr. Muhammad Asaf, Advocate and the latter on a Court question, made a categorical statement at the Bar, to the effect, that he has instructions to prosecute the execution proceedings against the petitioner on behalf of the decree-holder. It was further stated that the petitioner had delayed the execution of the decree passed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan for the last about a period of 17 years. It was also submitted that the statement made by him on 12-7-1969 before the learned Rent Controller in another case could not be made applicable to the execution proceedings initiated by the decree-holder against the petitioner, with instructions to him to pursue the same on behalf of the decree-holder.
5. I have considered the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the relevant documents on the file. In my view the statement made by learned counsel for the decree-holder in one case may be relevant, for consideration, in another case pending decision between the same parties; but can hardly apply with equal force in the circumstances of this case particularly when the decree-holder could give instructions to his counsel to pursue one case, on his behalf and not to pursue the other. The precedents cited by the petitioner are, therefore, not helpful to him in the circumstances of the instant case.
' The statement of Mr. Muhammad Asaf, Advocate made at the Bar; that he has instructions to pursue the execution proceedings on behalf of the decree-holder, cannot be doubted specially when the power-of-attorney executed in his favour has not so far been revoked by the decree- holder.
6. For the foregoing reasons I have no option but to dismiss this petition in motion.