' Brief facts of the instant writ petition are that a suit for injunction was filed on 15-8-1991 against respondent No,2 in respect of encroachment of a portion of Property No,31/214 and constructions of Thara there. This suit was withdrawn with permission to file another suit. Suit for possession alongwith injunction was filed against the petitioner and respondent No,2 with the prayer for mandatory injunction regarding the demolishing of construction and handing over the possession of vacant plot to the plaintiff/respondent. This suit was contested by the petitioner as well as respondent No,1 jointly and an ex parte decree was passed on 27-1-1994 against the petitioner and respondent No,
1. The execution of the same was filed under Order 21, Rule 10, C.P.C. By the respondent decree-holder. Possession of the disputed constructed shop was claimed in the execution proceedings. The learned trial Court issued warrant of arrest under Order 21, Rule 35, C.P.0 and this order was assailed through an objection petition filed by the petitioner on the basis that since no decree for possession was passed, therefore, warrant of possession could not be issued at all. The decree could be executed under Order 21, Rule 32, C.P.C. This objection petition was partly accepted on 6-6-1996. The proceedings were stayed and a direction was given to the decree- holder to file an application under Order 21, Rule 32, C.P.C. The decree-holder filed an application under Order 21, Rule 32, C.P.C. On 23-6-1997. The learned trial Court fixed the case for reply on 15-7- 1997. The learned trial Court issued warrant of possession as well as warrant of arrest of the judgment-debtor. A revision petition was filed against that order which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot on 20-6-1998. The impugned judgment dated 15-7-1997 and that of 20-6-1998 is assailed in the instant writ petition.
2. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that decree is not executable at all. In application under Order 21, Rule 32, C.P.C. Filed by the respondent No,1 in compliance of the direction of the learned trial Court, learned trial Court did not issue notice to the judgment-debtor and had not given them an opportunity of hearing. Further submits that an execution application under Order 21, Rule 10, C.P.C. Was not competent at all. It is competent when the decree for possession regarding movable property is passed by the learned trial Court when no decree for possession by the learned trial Court was passed, therefore, the execution was not competent hence, the order of both the learned subordinate Courts are against the principle of natural justice and are passed without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Against a concurrent finding passed by two Courts below the instant Constitutional petition has been filed by the petitioner against a revisional order passed by the learned revisional Court. The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for possession alongwith the perpetual and mandatory injunction for the encroachment upon the suit land by the petitioner and his brother respondent and constructing a shop thereon. The detail of the property was given in the body of the plaint and the plaintiff sought the perpetual injunction restraining the defendant No,1 to carrying on with the construction over the suit land and removal of debries and also for an appropriate direction to make the defendants Nos.1 and 2 to abide by the laws of the Municipal Corporation, Sialkot in relation to the construction made within the limits of the Sialkot Municipal Corporation and also sought any other relief available under the law. Suit was contested by filing written statement on various grounds. The suit was ex parte decreed in favour of the plaintiff/respondent and against defendants Nos.1 and 2. In the decree-sheet the prayer as envisaged in the plaint was repeated verbatim. Execution application was filed by the decree- holder. Perusal of the file shows that the judgment-debtor was attending the Courts and objecting the execution petition. On 6-6-1997 the learned Civil Judge II Class gave an observation that the warrant of possession cannot be issued unless execution proceedings are taken under Order 21, Rule 32, C.P.C. A direction was given to the decree-holder to file an application under Order 21, Rule 32, C.P.C. And the proceedings in the execution petition were stayed till the filing of the execution application under Order 21, Rule 32, C.P.C. An execution petition in compliance of the order of the learned Civil Judge II Cliss was filed by the decree-holder. A revision petition was filed by the judgment-debtor which was decided vide judgment dated 20-6-1998 with the observation that since. The learned Presiding Officer who has passed the impugned judgment was transferred, the file was submitted to the learned District Judge with the request that the execution petition be entrusted to any competent learned Civil Judge with the direction to proceed with it on day-to-day basis. The learned revisional Court also directed the party to appear before the learned District Judge on 22-6-1998 for appropriate orders. The revision petition was dismissed.
4. I have carefully perused the judgment of the learned revisional Court. The learned Judge has rightly held that the execution proceedings did not suffer from any illegality as an issuance of warrant is not a case decided for interference in revisional jurisdiction. He has also rightly held that the execution petition under Order 21, Rule 10, C.P.C. Was rightly filed by the decree-holder and a wrong direction was given by the learned trial Court/executing Court to file an application under Order 21, Rule 32, C.P.C.
5. In a writ petition filed against a revisional order passed by a Court who has the jurisdiction to decide the same and the order on its face is not void or coram non judice. High Court cannot interfere in a Constitutional jurisdiction against a judgment passed by a subordinate Court in revision or appeal unless the above two factors are present. As a Constitutional Court the High Court has to keep in view that the Legislature through the amendment in section 115, C.P.C. Has taken away the revisional jurisdiction from the High Court and vested the same in the District Court and if it is found that the impugned judgment passed by the learned executing Court and that of the learned District Judge in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction are not illegal and not passed without lawful authority. The Constitutional petition in such cases will be incompetent as held in Noor Muhammad v. Serwar Khan and others PLD 1985 SC 131 and Badar-ud-Din v. Mehr Ahmad Raza, Additional Sessions Judge, Jhang PLD 1993 SC 399, that a finding by a Court of competent jurisdiction on the revisional side attains finality and a writ on the same question will be incompetent as it will tantamount to allowing the question finally decided in one-set of forums to be agitated afresh in another set of forums and in this way there will be no end to the litigation.
Abdur Rehman Bajwa v. Sultan Ahtnad and others PLD 1981 SC 522 and Javaid Iqbal v. Muhammad Din and others 1990 SCM R 1309 are referred in the above judgments.
6. After perusing the complete record and also judgments passed by the subordinate Courts I have found no illegality in a decision arrived at by the Revisional Courts below and there is no substance available to interfere in the concurrent findings arrived at by both the Courts having jurisdiction to decide the same. Therefore, the instant writ petition is dismissed in limine.