' This order will govern Writ Petitions Nos, 4 and 5 of 1992 as both these writ petitions have arisen out of execution proceedings filed by Mst. Rashida Akhtar.
2. The relevant facts are that Mst. Rashida Akhtar (herein respondent No,3) instituted two separate suits in the Court of Civil Judge, Ist Class, IIasilpur against petitioners for the recovery of Rs,17,350 and Rs,25,000 respectively alleging therein that petitioners were her tenants and had not paid her rent for rented premises. The suits were decreed by two separate judgments, dated 20-5-1990.
Against these decrees the petitioners filed two appeals bearing No,63 and 72 of 1990 which were dismissed by the learned first appellate Court by a single judgment, dated 26-3-1991. It was held that the appeals filed by the petitioners were barred by time. Feeling aggrieved with these decisions, the petitioners preferred revision petitions under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure in this Court which were dismissed as unpressed. Unrelenting, the petitioners filed two separate applications under section 114 and Order 47, rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure for recalling the order of this Court, dated 15-4-1991 on the ground that the learned counsel who did not press the revision petitions had no authority to make the statement. These applications were dismissed by this Court vide an order, dated 5-11-1991. It was held: "I am afraid this prayer is totally misconceived and wholly untenable in view of Rule laid down in Dr. Ansar Hassan Rizvi v. Syed Mazahir Hussain Zaidi and 3 others1971 SCM R 634, wherein it was held that the Advocate has an express as well as implied authority of his client to enter into compromise, settle the dispute and to do any other act necessary for the case unless such authority is expressly denied. Having regard to the above rule, I find no merit in this application which is dismissed in limine."
' In this background, the respondent No,3 made an application for execution of decrees, dated 20- 5-1990. Vide order, dated 12-5-1991, the learned executing Court passed an order in following terms:--- "Substituted service of judgment-debtor has been effected, but no body is present on the part of judgment-debtor. Vide the order of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur, the appeal of the judgment-debtor against the impugned judgment has been dismissed on 26-3-1991, therefore, the execution proceedings shall be continued. For the ends of justice warrant of attachment of immovable and movable property of judgment-debtor is hereby issued to the bailiff of the Court. The bailiff is directed to seek the help of the Police for the attachment of property of the judgment-debtor. Warrant of attachment be issued and process fee be deposited within three days. Now come up for the report of warrant on 6-6-1991."
' On account of non-compliance of the aforesaid order the learned executing Court proceeded to pass another order on 6-6-1991 in following terms:- {{URDU TEXT}} ' These orders were passed in both the execution petitions. Against these orders, the petitioners filed two separate revision petitions which were dismissed by the learned District Judge, Bahawalpur holding:-- "It is an admitted fact that the property, movable or immovable, given in the inventory attached with the warrant of attachment has not so far been attached. The petitioners have the remedy before the executing Court itself to raise objections after their property having been attached.
Moreover, even if they have any objection to the issuance of warrant of arrest against them, they can also raise objection before the same Court. They have not chosen to avail of this remedy in the first instance before executing Court and have assailed the impugned orders which are interlocutory ones and, of course, do not fulfil one of the requisite ingredients of the same falling within the definition of the "case decided" according to section 115, C.P.C. For this reason the present revision as contended by the learned counsel for the respondent, is not competent. Consequently the same is dismissed."
' Hence these Constitution petitions.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners assailed the order of learned District Judge on two-fold grounds:--- Firstly, that neither the executing Court nor the revisional Court had taken into consideration that the learned counsel for the petitioners who made the statement before High Court on 15-4-1991 had no authority to make such statement. On the strength of this contention, it was suggested that the order of appellate Court has so far not attained finality. The judgments and decrees passed by the appellate Court affirming the decrees passed by the Court of first instance were still unexecutable.
' Secondly, that the learned executing Court had passed the impugned orders without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioneRs, These orders, therefore, were violative of the principle of natural justice 'that no body should be condemned unheard'. According to the learned counsel, these orders were void ab initio and merited to be struck down in Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.
3. Learned counsel for respondent, in reply raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of these Constitution petitions by saying that the impugned orders were passed by executing Court tentatively and were subject to objection under Order XXI, Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
According to the learned counsel the Constitutional jurisdiction against inchoate and interim orders was not competent.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I fmd lot of substance in the objection of the learned counsel for the respondent. Order XXI, Rule 58 reads as follows:-- "Order XXI, Rule 58: "Investigation of claims to, and objections to attachment of attached property.---(1) Where any claim is preferred to, or any objection is made to the attachment of, any property attached in execution of a decree on the ground that such property is not liable to such attachment, the Court shall proceed to investigate the claim or objection with the like power as regards the examination of the claimant or objector, and in all other respects, as if he was a party to the suit: ' Provided that no such investigation shall be made where it appears to the Court that the claim or objection (whether made before or after the sale) has been designedly or unnecessarily delayed, or was not made within a reasonable time or within one year of the date of first attachment of the said property in the execution of the said decree, whichever is earlier, unless the claimant or objector--
(a) proves title acquired in good faith and for consideration subsequent to the date of the first attachment;
(b) proves that his predecessors-in-interest, whether their interest existed at the time of such attachment or was acquired thereafter, fraudulently omitted to make a claim or objection; and
(c) impleads all such predecessors-in-interest, as parties.
(2) Postponement of sale.---Where the property to which the claim or objection applies has been advertised for sale, the Court ordering the sale may postpone it pending the investigation of the claim or objection.
6. From the plain language of Rule 58 of Order XXI reproduced above, it is clear that all the questions relating to right, title or interest of outsider claimant or objector in attached property are to be adjudicated upon and arc to be determined by the executing Court and not in any other proceedings. The executing Court had been vested with full powers to decide all these questions.
The petitioners have a right and opportunity to file objection petition under Rule 58 of Order XXI, C.P.C. For the determination of those objections. In presence of this adequate and efficacious remedy, the petitioners cannot invoke the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
7. For the reasons stated above, these petitions are found to be without merit and are accordingly dismissed.