1. ' Mr. Ghulam Murtaza, Advocate and Mr. Muhammad Zia Karim, Advocates have been heard.
2. ' This is an application under Order 26, Rules 11 and 12, C.P.C. In which Judgment-Debtor No,1 prays that a Local Commissioner be appointed for taking accounts from the Decree-holder. In the supporting affidavit, judgment-debtor No,1 says that he was under detention of the Martial Law Authorities when the consent decree for Rs,30,01,442.16 was passed on 6-5-1978 and that the "statement of accounts" filed by Decree-holder is incorrect as no adjustment is allowed for tickets issued but not utilised and for amounts paid by Judgment-debtor No,1. The application is contested by Decree-holder on whose behalf counter-affidavit has been filed in which it is stated that after all adjustments and accounting for the interest the amount due on the decree comes up to Rs,90,95,403.43 as on 31-12-1991.
3. ' I am of the view that a Commissioner for taking account can be appointed only in a suit and not in an execution application. Now no suit is pending between the parties and, therefore, Commissioner for taking accounts cannot be appointed under Order 26, Rules 11 and 12. Secondly, Judgment- debtor No,1 wants that accounts should be taken from decree-holder but decree-holder is not an accounting party. Thirdly, it is incumbent upon the Court to determine who is the accounting party and from whom accounts can be demanded but no such determination has been made. As a matter of fact, decree-holder is not an accounting party. It appears that Judgment-debtor No,1 wants to go behind the decree and he cannot be suffered to do so. If at all there is any accounting party, it is Judgment-debtor No,1 himself and it is for him to show what amounts, if any, he has paid to the decree-holder since the passing of the decree. C.M.A. No,466 of 1988 is, therefore, not maintainable and there is no force in the contentions raised by Judgment-debtor No,1 therein. It is accordingly dismissed.
4. ' This execution application was filed on 4-8-1.979 but from the very first day no action has been taken thereon so far. On 23-11-1980 learned counsel of the decree-holder made a statement that after the filing of the execution petition, the judgment-debtors had made certain payment of which he would file a statement. This he could not do for six long years and this statement was eventually filed on 9th December, 1986 which gave outstanding balance on that date as Rs,21,38,274.02.
5. Learned counsel of Judgment-debtor No,1 referred to letter dated May 7, 1978 sent by decree- holder to Judgment-debtor No,1 and claimed that the amount mentioned therein had not been adjusted. Reference to this letter is totally unwarranted. This letter was in reply to Judgment-debtor No,1's letter of 27th April, 1989. Letter of 6th May refers to state of affairs as they existed prior to the passing of the decree and it is of no value after the passing of the decree. Besides, Judgment- debtor No,1 did not agitate the contents of this letter for full eight years and filed it in Court on 24-3- 1988. This delay shows that Judgment-debtor No,1 himself did not attach any value to this letter.
6. ' Qn 1-2-1987 notices of execution application were for the first time issued to judgment-debtors (after eight years of instituting the execution proceedings). Even after this delay, there is gross negligence on the part of the decree-holders as costs were not paid and current address of Judgment-debtor No,3 was not supplied. Eventually Judgment-debtors Nos.2 and 3 were served by publication. At this stage C.MA. No,466 of 1988 was filed by Judgment-debtor No,1 on 24-3-1988 which has been disposed of today.
7. ' Writ of attachment may now be issued on the basis of the statement filed by the decree-holders on 9th December, 1986. Process etc. Within a week.
8. ' A copy of this order should be served on the Chairman as well as Managing Director of the decree-holder (P.I.A.) for looking into the desirability of deputing an officer to pursue this petition and assist their learned counsel.