1. ' This Revision application is filed against the order of District Judge passed in Civil Appeal No, 42 of 1976, rejecting the contention of the applicant that the execution proceedings, pending pursuant to the order of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller, cannot be enforced against him, and ordering further proceedings in the execution application. The circumstances under which the present Revision Application has arisen may be stated as follows:- ' The respondent instituted an application for eviction of one Wali Muhammad son of Sharifuddin under the Revisions of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 from a cabin, which was standing on a plot, bearing C.S. Nos. 816 to 818, Ward 'B' Chakra Bazar, Nawabshah. The application was granted by the Rent Controller, and the order, was maintained in the Second Appeal, which was filed against the order of eviction. After the decision of the Second. Appeal by this Court, the respondent filed an execution application which was dismissed by the Rent Controller/Executing Court on the ground that the cabin on the site does not exist and, as such, the execution application has been frustrated. The order of the Exeeuting Court was challenged before the learned District Judge, Nawabshah, who, by his judgment, dated 7th of February, 1978, came to the conclusion that, as on th place of cabin there is new a shop, therefore, the landlady/respondent will be entitled to the possession of the shop, which has been raised on the same site, where the cabin was standing. He accordingly allowed the appeal of the respondent, and ordered for further proceedings in the execution application. The order of the District Judge is challenged in this Revision Application and it is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the execution application cannot proceed, as the application for eviction instituted by the respondent related to a cabin on the site, which did not exist. It is further contended by the learned counsel that, after the removal of the cabin by the Municipal Authorities, one of the applicants, namely, Muhammad Aslam son of Wali Muhammad had instituted Civil Suit No 28 of 1977 before the Joint Civil Judge, Nawabshah which was decreed ex parte against the respondent on 31st of January, 1978, and an application for setting aside the ex parte decree moved by the respondent was also rejected on 22-4-1980. It is accordingly contended by the learned counsel that, in view of the decree in Suit No, 28 of 1977, by which a permanent injunction has been issued against the respondent restraining him from executing the decree of ejectment against the applicant, the execution application otherwise cannot be maintained against him. In so far as the first contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is concerned, that, because the cabin does not exist on the site, the execution application B cannot proceed, it has been considered at length by the learned District Judge, Nawabshah, and rejected, and no exception can be taken to the order, District Judge with regard to the first contention. However, with regard to the second contention of the learned counsel that, after the removal of cabin, a suit was instituted by one of the applicants, namely, Muhammad Aslam against the respondent for a permanent injunction, which has been decreed, this contention was neither taken note of in the order of the Rent Controller nor by the learned District Judge. The effect of the judgment in Suit No, 28, of 1977, has not been considered by the two Courts below, and therefore, it is not possible to give any finding in this regard in this Revision Application. The applicant is at liberty to bring to the notice of the Executing Court that, subsequent to the filing of the execution application, a further order has been passed by a civil Court in a civil suit instituted by one of the applicants, and the trial Court will decide this contention in accordance with the law.
2. Subject to these observations, the Revision Application is dismissed, but there will be no order as to costs.