MIAN NAZIR AKHTAR, J.-The petitioner has assailed the orders dated 7.3.1990 and 2.4.1990 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Gujrat, and the learned Additional District Judge, Gujrat, respectively, refusing temporary injunction to the petitioner.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that respondents No. 1 to 3 obtained a decree for maintenance against their father, Sooba Khan. The said respondents filed an execution petition against Sooba Khan, respondent No.4, in the Court of Mr Muhammad Akhtar Khan, Judge, Family Court, Gujrat. The Court ordered attachment of the movable property of the judgment-debtor. In pursuance of the said order, the movable property of the judgment-debtor was attached and given to one Muhammad Nawaz as a 'Superdar'. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an objection petition under Order XXI rule 58 of the C.P.C, alleging therein that the goods attached belonged to her. Along with the objection petition, she filed an application for grant of temporary injunction, which was refused by the Executing Court, vide the order dated 7.3.1990. The petitioner's appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gujrat, vide his order dated 2.4.1990.
3. Today, only C.M. No.l972-C of 1990 was fixed for hearing. However, I have heard the arguments in the main revision petition (with the concurrence of the learned counsel for the parties) at considerable length. Both the learned counsel stated that they were fully prepared and did not need an adjournment for addressing arguments in the revision petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that in view of the law laid down in the case of Pervaiz Ahmad vs District Judge West. Karachi etc. (NLR 1987 CLJ 622), the decree for maintenance could be executed only under the provisions of section 13(3) of the Family Courts Act and that the procedure laid down in the C.P.C., including the provisions for attachment of the property were not applicable. The argument raised by the learned counsel is counterpoised to the maintainability of the objection petition itself. On the one had, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urges that the C.P.C, is not applicable and that the J^cree can be executed only in the manner provided under section 13(3) of the Family Courts Act and on the other had, wants the Court to entertain his objection petition under order XXI rule 58 of the C.P.C, and to grant temporary injunction to him during the pendency of the objection petition. The provisions of the C.P.C, stand excluded by virtue of section 17 of the Family Courts Act (except sections 10 and 11). Moreover, no material was placed on the record to show that the articles ordered tobe attached belonged to the petitioner. Hence, no prima facie case was made out in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner, if so advised, may seek any other remedy available to her under the law to challenge the attachment order passed by the Family Court.
5. With the above observations, the present revision is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.