' The dispute in this petition arises out of an execution matter. It is unfortunate the order passed by Rent Controller as far back as October, 1969 has not been executed despite the expiry of period of more than two decades. On going through the facts of the case, one cannot help being reminded of the famous observation of the Privy Council in India that 'misfortune of a litigant starts when he obtains a decree.
2. Azimullah, father of respondent No,1 filed an application under section 13 of the Punjab Rent Restriction Ordinance against one Shahzad Hassan. The application was allowed by the Rent Controller on 17th December, 1969. That order was not challenged any further by Shahzad Hassan.
However, when respondent No,1 applied for execution of the order, the present petitioner filed an oblation petition alleging that he was lawful transferee of the property in dispute and a permanent transfer deed stood issued in his favour by the Settlement Department. These objections, after protracted litigation, were finally rejected by the Executing Court on 11th May, 1985.
3. The petitioner challenged that order by filing appeal which was, however, dismissed on 17-1-1984.
It was categorically found by the Rent Controller that PTD produced by the petitioner was forged and fraudulent. That order was maintained by the Additional District Judge who dismissed the appeal of the petitioner on 22-11-1984.
4. Undeterred petitioner once again filed another objection petition in which it was alleged that the property did not stand transferred to the predecessor of respondent No,1 and the order of ejectment was obtained from the Rent Controller through fraud and misrepresentation and not capable of being executed. These objections were rejected by the learned Executing Court on 11th May, 1985 without holding any inquiry for the reason that earlier petition on the same subject was dismissed by him as also the appellate Court. Hence this petition.
5. In this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, which was filed by the petitioner in October, 1985 he has challenged the orders passed by the Executing Court and Additional District Judge, the objection petitions filed by the petitioner were dismissed.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that Shahzad Hassan, who was impleaded as the respondent in the ejectment petition, was never in the possession of the property which was in occupation of the petitioner in his own right and as such the order of ejectment was not binding upon him nor could he be dispossessed in execution thereof. It was also argued by the learned counsel that the order of ejectment was obtained through fraud and misrepresentation and that petitioner and not respondent No,1 was the transferee of the premises in question.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No,1 has vehemently contended that the present proceedings are in sheer abuse of process of Court and by various means the petitioner has managed to delay the execution of the decree for the last about 25 years.
8. As already pointed out, the petitioner had in 1970 filed an objection petition alleging that he was in possession of the property in dispute in his own right. The learned Executing Court after framing relevant issues recorded evidence of the parties and held vide its order, dated 17-1-1984 that the claim put forward by the petitioner was fraudulent, fictitious and that PTD relied upon by him was forged. While coming to this conclusion, the Rent Controller, inter alia, relied upon the statement of Iqbal Muhammad, C.W.1 who produced the relevant record and various factors which proved that the petitioner had no right or title in the property. That order, which was passed on 17-1-1984 was affirmed in appeal on 17-6-1984. The petitioner, instead of challenging those orders any further, surprisingly filed another objection petition almost on the same subject-matter on similar allegations.
9. Although in this Constitutional petition, petitioner has assailed the orders dated 17-1-1984 and that challenge is clearly belated and badly suffers from 'aches. Besides the petitioner, having accepted the order by not challenging any further and instead resorted to the device of filing second objection petition, has acquiesced in the same. For this reason alone, this petition is liable to be dismissed. Even otherwise there is no jurisdictional error committed either by the Rent Controller or by the Additional District Judge whose orders are based on proper appreciation of evidence.
10. So far as second objection petition was concerned, it was liable to be rejected on the short ground that the petitioner, having failed in the earlier, objection petition could not have instituted second objection petition. The petitioner's learned counsel has, however, contended that second objection petition was based on a different ground. Even if it be so, it was not open to the petitioner on the principle of constructive res judicata to file second objection petition. Further as found by the Courts below, petitioner has no right in the property nor has he locus stand to object to the execution. The documents on that record namely copies of survey register, the record of Excise and Taxation Department as also PTD issued in favour of respondent No,1 show that the property was in occupation of Shahzad Hassan who was the respondent in the ejectment petition.
' In view of what has been stated above, this petition is dismissed with costs.