The facts, which led Muhammad Shafi and others to file this writ petition, stated briefly, are that respondents Nos.4 to 8 had filed a suit for possession of land, through redemption, against the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners, namely, Mir Abbas etc. In the Court of Civil Judge, Swabi. The said suit was decreed on 2-10-1987 and a preliminarily decree was granted to respondents Nos.4 to 8. Later, a final decree was also granted to the respondents i.e., Nos.4 to 8 on 24-11-1987. The petitioners' pre-decessors' appeal against the said decree was dismissed on 24-7- 1989 by the Additional District Judge, Swabi.
2. Respondents Nos.4 to 8 then applied for the execution of the decree in question and the execution proceedings were initiated. The predecessors-in---interest of the petitioners contested/objected to the execution proceedings. The objection was. However, dismissed by the executing Court on 5-11-1991 as it was found to be without any merit. The petitioners, being legal heirs of Mir Abbas, aggrieved by the said order, filed a revision petition assailing the said order before the Additional District Judge, Swabi who however dismissed the same on 5-11-1991.
3. Hence this Constitutional petition by the petitioners against the order of the executing Court dated 5-11-1991 and- also the order of the Additional District Judge dated 11-7-1995 recorded in the exercise of his revisional jurisdiction whereby he refused to interfere with the order of the executing Court.
4. It will not be out of place to reproduce here the prayer part of the Constitutional petition which reads as under:--- "It is therefore respectfully prayed that on the acceptance of this petition the orders of the two learned lower forums of the respondents Nos.1 and 3 dated 5-11-1991 and 11-7-1995 respectively may kindly be set aside and be declared illegal, unlawful, against law and the facts of the case and the respondents Nos.4 to 8 may kindly be declared to be entitled only for their symbolic possession of their share 1 Kanal 13 Marlas in disputed property."
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length and have also gone through the impugned orders/record carefully.
6. As is clear from the facts mentioned above in paras. 1 and 2 and also from the prayer part reproduced above, this Constitutional petition is mainly directed against the order of the Civil Judge dated 5-11-1991 vide which he dismissed the objection application filed by the petitioner in the execution proceedings and the order of the Additional District Judge dated 11-7-1995 by which he dismissed the petitioners' revision petition and upheld the verdict of the Civil Judge.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners frankly admitted and rightly so that the executing Court had the jurisdiction to pass the order dated 5-11-1991 and that the same could be challenged under section 115, C.P.C. By filing a revision petition before the District Judge/Additional District Judge. Lie further conceded that. The needful was done and the petitioners' revision petition was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge vide the impugned order dated 11-7-1995. It is, therefore, evident that this Constitutional petition is not competent because the impugned orders passed by the executing Court as well as the Additional District Judge, in the exercise of his revisional jurisdiction, can, by any stretch of imagination, be said to be either illegal or to have been recorded without lawful authority. Further the impugned orders are neither arbitrary nor perverse and, therefore, need no interference by this Court in the exercise of its extraordinary Constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973--- which of course, can only '' be exercised in exceptional circumstances.
8. This writ petition being frivolous is dismissed with costs.