' Petition in revision has arisen out of execution proceedings and is against order dated 25-6-1977 of learned Senior Civil Judge, Multan and 1-2-1978 of learned District Judge, Multan. Material facts are: that Mistri Abdul Aziz brought a petition under section 17 of the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963 before the Rent Controller, Multan Cantt. For eviction of Abdul Rashid son of Abdul Rahim, on grounds of non-payment of rent, damage to the property and personal requirement. This petition was contested. Existence of relation of landlord and tenant was denied. Abdul Rashid, in petition under Order I, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure applied for impleading other heirs of Abdul Rahim, who according to him were also necessary parties. This petition was dismissed by Rent Controller Multan Cantt. On 17-1-74. An appeal was filed before learned District Judge, Multan. It was allowed and respondent (Abdul Aziz) was directed to implead all the heirs of Abdul Rahim deceased. In pursuance to this order, ejectment application was amended and all the heirs of Abdul Rahim, were impleaded as party-respondents. Written statement dated 3-10-1974 was filed on behalf of the aforementioned respondents by Ch.Nazir Ahmad, Advocate, Multan. Written statement is available at page 9 of the original rent case. In the light of the pleadings of the parties, learned Rent Controller framed the following preliminary issue:--
(1) Whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties?
2. Parties led evidence. Vide order dated 18-11-1976, Learned Rent Controller Multan Cantt. Found that the necessary relationship existed between the parties and proceeded to pass an ejectment order forthwith, against the respondents. Propriety of judgment dated 18-11-1976 was assailed before learned District Judge, Multan. Appeal did not succeed and was dismissed on 15-3-1977.
Learned District Judge in para. 7 of his order observed: "Much prominence was attached to the fact that the other heirs of Abdul Rahim deceased were impleaded as parties, but they were not served.
This fact is probably wrong, because Ch. Nasir Ahmad, the present counsel for the appellants had filed a written statement on behalf of the appellant and the other heirs and they were properly represented before the learned Rent Controller. I see no merit in this appeal and dismiss the same.
Order passed on appeal was not assailed further and it thus attained finality. Armed with the eviction order, Abdul Aziz then applied for its execution and recovery of possession. Appellants, however, stood in his way and filed an application under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure objecting to the execution of the eviction order on the sole ground that the newly impleaded legal heirs of Abdul Rahim, had neither been served nor heard. In this objection petition they maintained that eviction order dated 18-11-1976, affirmed on appeal could not be executed against them.
Executing Court, by virtue of its order dated 25-6-1977 refused stay of execution. Against this order, two separate appeals (Civil Appeal No,62/14 of 1977 and Civil Appeal No,65/14 of 1977) were preferred before learned District Judge, Multan. Through a single order dated 1-2-1978, both the appeals were dismissed. Still not satisfied, Abdul Khalil and other heirs of deceased Abdul Rahim have filed a petition in revisional jurisdiction against the order refusing stay of execution. Abdul Rashid, Abdul Waheed have been joined as respondents in the civil revision. They did not separately challenge order passed in their Civil Appeal No,62/14 of 1977. This civil revision was admitted on 7-2-1978 and has some how lingered on till today. Execution proceedings were also stayed. Accordingly respondent Abdul Aziz, a decree holder could not succeed in recovering possession of his property.
3. Petition in revision was listed on 25-6-1985 and was adjourned to 30-6-1985. Rana Abdul Rahim Khan, learned counsel is not present. Petitioners have requested for adjournment. In view of the nature of the controversy and that it being fairly an old matter, I did not consider it fit and proper to further adjourn the case. Consequently, Abdul Khalil petitioner present in person has been heard. It was contended that the petitioners, though made parties to the ejectment petition, yet were neither served nor heard in their defence. Consequently, any order of ejectment passed in such circumstances by the Rent Controller and maintained on appeal, was of no consequence and could not be executed against the petitioners. Mr.Islam Ali Qureshi, learned counsel for the contesting respondents has taken me through the record of the case and urged that the petitioners were represented by Mr. Nazir Ahmad, their counsel. It was further submitted that written statement on their behalf was filed and evidence was also led in support of the plea of denial of relationship. He urged that the petitioners are frustrating the ejectment order passed against them by a Court of competent jurisdiction. Further argued that the executing Court was not competent to go behind the order passed by the learned Rent Controller and maintained on appeal, more so when the learned District Judge, in his order dated 15-3-1977, had expressed himself on this point against the petitioners. It was also urged that on a complaint of Abdul Aziz, respondents Abdul Rashid and Abdul Waheed were convicted under section 463/465, P.P.C. For having forged an agreement to sell in respect of the property in dispute by a Magistrate 1st Class, Multan on 19-1- 1972. However, on appeal by them, Additional Sessions Judge-I, Multan, on the statements of the two appellants before him, conviction and sentence was set aside, and agreement Exh.PG (agreement to sell), in view of the statements of the appellants was ordered to be cancelled.
Proceeding further, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that on one pretext or the other the petitioners have succeeded in depriving the respondent Abdul Aziz from the use of his property and in this they have succeeded to a large extent. It is conceded that execution proceedings are still subjudice before the executing Court and are stayed under an order from this Court.
4. Order passed by Rent Controller is appealable under section 2 of Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, '1963. In terms of subsection (5) of section 24 of the aforenoted Act, "No order of the Rent Controlle A except by an appeal under this section and no order of the appellat Court made under this Act, shall be called in question in any Court by any suit, appeal or proceedings". Evidently with the dismissal o appeal, the order of eviction had attained finality and the executing Court was not competent to go behind its correctness. This is too well-settled proposition of law to be supported by any precedent. The contention that the appellants were not served, nor heard had already been adjudicated upon in clear terms by the Court of appeal in it order dated 1-2-1978 and could not be gone into once again in execution proceedings. In this view of the matter, I am of the firm opinion that the Court below committed no error in refusing interim stay. Orders passed were not only with jurisdiction but were most appropriate is the circumstances of the case. Civil revision is devoid of any fore whatsoever. It fails and is dismissed with costs which are assessed a Rs,2,000.
5. Copy of the order alongwith the records be transmitted forthwith to the Court seized of execution taking further proceedings in execution.