CH. MUSHTAQ AHMAD KHAN, J.- Briefly stated, facts of the case out of which this petition has arisen are that in execution of a decree for payment of maintenance at the rate of Rs.200/-P.M. Passed in favour of Abdul Rauf minor son of Zafarullah petitioner No. 1, landed property belonging to the petitioner No. 2 who is a surely has been attached and is being sold by the learned executing court.
Petitioner No. 2 raised an objection against the attachment and sale of his property on the ground that as the judgment debtor who is father of respondent No. 2 is ready to pay the maintenance, land belonging to the surety cannot be proceeded against. This objection was not accepted and the property in question was directed to be put to auction. Petitioner's revision has also been dismissed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Nankana Sahib vide order dated 6-10-1992. In this constitutional petition, the said order passed in revision has been challenged by the judgment debtor and the surety who are petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 respectively.
2. In support of this constitutional petition, Mr. G.H. Khan Advocate has argued that although revision petition before the learned Addl. District Judge has been dismissed as being barred by time and the delay has not been condoned by the learned Addl. District Judge yet the original order of attachment and sale of the land belonging to petitioner No. 2 being illegal, revision petition could not have been dismissed on the ground of limitation. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner, No. 1 who is the judgment debtor is ready to pay the maintenance hence land of the petitioner No. 2 cannot be proceeded against in execution of the impugned decree.
3. I have considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly the revision petition before the learned Addl. District Judge .Was barred by time. There is ho sufficient explanation for filing of a delayed petition. Learned Addl. District Judge in exercise of his discretion has refused to condone the delay. In writ jurisdiction, this court cannot interfere with the exercise of discretion by the learned revisional court with regard to the condonation of delay, therefore, the order of refusal to condone the delay passed by the learned Addl. District Judge is not liable to be interfered with. Argument of the learned counsel to the effect that as the basic order of attachment and sale of property is illegal hence the revision petition could have been filed at any time is also misconceived and fallacious. Firstly the basic order passed by the learned executing court is not illegal, the decree can be executed against the judgment debtor as well as his surety and it is not necessary that final execution proceedings should be exhausted against the judgment-debtor and then surety should be proceeded against therefore, I find no illegality with the order passed by the learned executing court whereby the land belonging to the petitioner No. 2 has been attached and has been directed to be sold. Even otherwise it is very strange that this writ petition has been filed jointly by the judgment debtor and the surety. If the petitioners are acting bona fidely there is no bar for the petitioner No. 1 to immediately deposit the maintenance amount and on deposit thereof, the land belonging to the petitioner No. 2 shall definitely not be sold inasmuch as the decree shall stand executed or the petitioner No. 2 should get the amount from petitioner No. 1 and deposit the same before the executing court who is concerned with the recovery of the maintenance for the minor child and not necessarily for sale of the land belonging to the petitioner No. 2, hence plea of the petitioners that the land should not be sold because petitioner No. 1 wants to pay the maintenance appears to be mala fide and a design to deprive the minor child to receive his maintenance which has been granted to him by a court of competent jurisdiction at the rate of Rs.200/-P.M. Which is a very petty amount. Even otherwise an illegal order is also to be challenged within limitation.
4. The orders passed by the learned two courts below are quite fair and just and the petitioners have, not come to this court with clean hands. They want to deprive a minor child of his lawful demand to recover his maintenance which he is getting in execution of a decree passed by a court of competent jurisdiction. 1 do not feel inclined to interfere with such an order in exercise of my discretionary jurisdiction. This writ petition is dismissed in limine.