' MIAN MUHAMMAD AJMAL, J.--- In this appeal the appellants have impugned the order of the Additional District Judge, Haripur dated 24-6-1992 whereby their Execution Application No, 21/10 of 1991 for realisation of compensation of fruit bearing trees, (Malta) at the rate of Rs,302 per tree fixed by this Court in R.FA. No, 24 of 1975, was dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that vide Award No, 24 dated 12-10-1973, the entire estate of village Khalabat, Tehsil and District Haripur was acquired for Turbela Dam. The owners being not satisfied with the award of the Collector, filed an Objection Petition No, 173/4 of 1974 captioned as Shaukat Zaman Khan etc. v. Land Acquisition Collector and others, under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of compensation of fruit bearing trees wherein the appellants were also the objectors. The objection petition was accepted on 19-8-1974 by the learned Referee Court who enhanced the price of Malta trees to Rs,200 per tree, which amount was received by the appellants herein, in execution proceedings. Some of the landowners who were not satisfied with the enhancement of the price of Malta trees preferred appeal before the High Court in R.FA. No, 24 of 1975, which was accepted and the price of malta trees was further enhanced to Rs, 302 per tree.
The appellant's case is that although they did not file an appeal before the High Court, yet they were entitled to the enhanced price of Malta trees granted to appellants of R.FA. No, 24/75, at the rate of Rs, 302 per tree because they were effectees of same award.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that although the appellants did not prefer an appeal and were not party in R.FA. No, 24/75, yet they are entitled to the enhanced price of Rs,302 per tree as this amount has been fixed in the Award No, 24 which covers all the effectees. He further stated that the execution application was filed on 25-2-1991 when they came to know about the decision published in PLD 1988 Peshawar page 71. He referred to certain case-law and argued that even if the appeal has not been preferred by certain objectors, yet they would be entitled to the relief given by the Court to others, in the same award.
4. The learned Assistant Advocate-General vehemently opposed the aforesaid contentions and urged that the executing Court cannot go behind the decree and as the appellants were not party in R.F.A. No, 24 of 1975, therefore, they cannot claim the benefit of the judgment delivered in that appeal. The appellants, if were not satisfied with the decree, they should have filed an appeal before the High Court which remedy they did not avail and as such cannot demand the benefit granted to appellants who filed the appeal. He further pleaded that the application for execution, which is otherwise baseless, filed by the appellants was hopelessly time barred, therefore, even on that score, it was liable to be dismissed.
5. We have given due consideration to the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case.
6. Admittedly, the appellants did not avail the right of appeal and did not challenge the judgment and decree of the learned Referee Judge wherein the price of Malta trees was fixed at the rate of Rs,200 per tree. Thus, it is obvious that the appellants whole heartedly accepted the decree and received the compensation at the said rate through execution proceedings which also sufficiently reflects that they were fully contented with the said price, therefore, they did not invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court by exercising their right of appeal. The executing Court was bound to execute the decree in accordance to its terms. After enhancement of price to the rate of Rs,200 per tree, the executing Court did execute the decree in its terms, and compensation at the said rate was paid to the appellants to their satisfaction. The Court could not execute High Court's decree in favour of the appellants as they were not party to it. It is well-settled principle of law that Court cannot go behind the terms of the decree and as appellants had no decree in their favour entitling them to get price @ Rs302 per tree, the Court has rightly dismissed their execution application. In view of the well-known legal maxim that equity aids the vigilant and not the indolent, the Court has properly declined to entertain stale demands and validly refused to extend the benefits which has been granted to the appealing party who were vigilant to fight for their rights by exercising their statutory right of appeal. One who sleeps over the rights, has no entitlement to any relief. As such the appellants, in the first instance, have no entitlement to the relief granted to the appellants in R.FA. No, 24 of 1975, and have no cause for execution, and secondly this Court decided the said appeal on 12-9-1981, whereas the execution application for the same was filed by the present appellants non-partisans in the judgment under execution on 25-2-1991 i,e, after about 10 years, for which no plausible explanation has been advanced. As the execution petition has been filed by the strangers to the decree being executed, therefore, it was properly and rightly rejected. The case- law cited at the Bar by the appellants is not applicable to the facts of the present case, as in those cases, the interested parties got themselves impleaded at one or the other stage of litigation, before the final adjudication of the matter, and thereby attained entitlement in the relief. In the instant case, the appellants waived their right of appeal as they were acquiesced with the decree of the Referee Court, therefore they have no locus standi to execute a decree in which they were not party.
' In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not fmd any merit in this appeal, and as such dismiss it with costs. C.M. 29/93 is also dismissed.