1. This is a petition for revision of an order of learned Additional District Judge, Sheikhupura dated 23- 2-1994 passed in Civil Appeal No.72 of 1993 by which an order of the trial Court dated 12-5-1993 refusing stay of execution against the house in question claimed by the petitioner was dismissed.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the present civil revision were as follows:----Shama Mumtaz Begum was married to Muhammad Boota son of Ghulam Farid. Two sons, namely, Hamid Farooq and Almas were born to them from this marriage. Muhammad Boota gave divorce to Shama Mumtaz Begum.
3. It became effective on 10-3-1988. She alongwith her two minor sons had earlier instituted a suit for maintenance against Muhammad Boota in a Family Court. It was contested by him. Eventually, it was decreed against him on 27-11-1990. The Family Court gave lump sum maintenance of Rs.1,600 to Shama Mumtaz Begum and as far the minor sons, they were allowed Rs.250 per month to Hamid Farooq and Rs.200 per month to Almas, respectively, since the institution of the suit for maintenance. Since the judgment-debtor failed to pay the decretal amount the maintenance decree was put in execution by Shama Mumtaz Begum. In course of execution, a house owned by judgment-debtor was attached by the Execution Court. Mst. Bashiran Bibi objected to the attachment of the house. She claimed its ownership as successor of her previous husband. It may be observed that Mst. Bashiran Bibi was real mother of the judgment-debtor. She gave no proof of the ownership of the house by her previous husband. Consequently, her objection preferred under section 47 of Civil Procedure Code was dismissed with costs on 13-2-1993. By the Court executing the decree. No appeal or revision was preferred from this decision. Instead, an independent civil suit for declaration of title to the aforesaid house was instituted against Shama Mumtaz Begum and Muhammad Boota for freeing it from the attachment and sale of it m execution of the maintenance decree, referred to above. Minor sons of Muhammad Boota, who were also decree- holders, were not impleaded as parties to the suit for declaration. It was averred in the plaint that the house in question was owned and possessed by the plaintiff and same had fallen to her on the demise of her previous husband and, therefore, it was not liable to attachment and sale in execution of maintenance decree passed against her son Muhammad Boota. Latter did not appear to contest. Defendant No.1, namely, Shams Mumtaz Begum filed her written statement. She denied the ownership of the house by the plaintiff. Alongwith the plaint, an application for temporary injunction for stopping sale of the house in execution of the maintenance decree was filed. It too was resisted by the female decree-holder. On 12-5-1993, trial Court dismissed the application for temporary injunction. An appeal preferred from this decision also failed in the Court below.
4. Thereupon, instant petition was filed in this Court through Mr. O. M. Saleem, Advocate. A Civil Miscellaneous No.3/C of 1994 filed for stay of auction of the house was dismissed summarily on 28- 5-1994. Few observations on the competence of civil revision, in the context of existing circumstances, were made in the order by me. Thereafter, hearing of the civil revision, which was yet in motion, suffered a few adjournments on account of pre-occupation of Mr. Q. M. Saleem, Advocate. Eventually, on 11-7-1994, an order for keeping the case on the cause list till it was finally disposed of was made by me. In this view, the date came up for hearing on 12-7-1994 and then on 13-7-1994. On the last date of hearing Mr. Q. M. Saleem, Advocate requested for adjournment. It was stated to the Court that the petitioner had taken away the brief from him and, therefore, he was unable to address the Court. Prior to it, no intimation on this subject was given to the office or the Court. In this background, since power of attorney in favour of Mr. Q. M. Saleem, Advocate was not terminated with the leave of the Court, he was asked to address the Court on merits of the case. He was reluctant to argue. Independent of his appointment as an Advocate by a private party, learned counsel as an officer of the Court was trusted to assist it in the administration of justice by it.
5. Nonetheless, much assistance did not come from him. In this view, I had to examine the record myself for decision of this civil revision because any further delay in the decision of the case adversely affected the interest of neglected minor children to receive maintenance from an undutiful father. As observed above, objections to the attachment of the house preferred by the petitioner were already dismissed by the Execution Court. The order was 'appealable but no appeal was filed from it. A revision was also not preferred from it. Therefore, the petitioner must be deemed to have accepted the decision of the Execution Court on her objection to the attachment of the house. It was clearly observed in the order that the petitioner had failed to give any proof of the ownership of the house by her previous husband. Despite an earlier adverse order, petitioner instituted a civil suit for declaration and tried to obtain an injunction order for stopping sale of the attached house for satisfying the maintenance decree. Her effort was foiled in the Courts below.
6. This time, she had relied upon a photocopy of a writing on a one rupee's stamp paper to support ownership of the house by her previous husband. It did not link itself to the house in question. The document was dated 7-4-1936. Original of it was not accounted for. Furthermore, it was an unregistered document. Its very existence was doubted in the trial Court on account of its non--- production in the earlier proceedings. Be that as it may, both the Courts below found that the petitioner had no prima facie case in her favour for stopping auction of the house in question in execution of the maintenance decree against the judgment-debtor. Other essentials for sustaining, the injunction order were also not found to exist. In face of Rule 62 of Order XXI, Civil Procedure Code, institution of an independent civil suit was not beyond doubt. In this view of the matter, learned Courts below did not err in exercise of their fair discretionary jurisdiction. As a result of the above, civil revision is dismissed in limine. Records shall be returned.