Let this writ petition be considered as admitted case.
2. Brief facts of -the instant writ petition are that respondent No. l got a decree of maintenance from the Chairman, Arbitration Council, Hajipura, District Sialkot to the extent of Rs.72,000 on 18-4- 1996. Later on the divorce was effected between the parties and respondent No. l was allowed to get the maintenance for the Iddat period that comes to Rs.24,000 up to the tune of Rs.96,000.
Respondent No. l has gone for execution proceedings before the learned Tehsildar for the recovery of the amount as land revenue. Grievance of the present petitioner is that he was arrested and brought before the Tehsildar where under coercion he was forced to sign some white papers which later on transpired to be the surety bond for the satisfaction of the decretal amount against his brother Tariq Bashir --- the judgment-debtor. He has further submitted that the petitioner has no objection if the Executing Court acts according to law against the judgment-debtor and attaches his movable and immovable property and for his arrest and detention as provided by law. He being next kinship is not responsible for the recovery of maintenance decree against his brother.
Reliance is placed on 1994 SCM R 1235 where it was held by the Honourable Supreme Court that the money recoverable as arrears of land revenue was not in the nature of taxes and rents, therefore, the coercive process issued by the respondent was unwarranted in the eyes of law.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the stance taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that execution proceedings for the recovery of maintenance decree is pending adjudication before the learned Tehsildar, Daska. In fact the petitioner himself appeared as surety and stepped into the shoes of the judgment-debtor and gave statement that he will get the compromise affected between the parties, in the manner that either they will pay the money or if the compromise is not affected then he can be proceeded according to provision of section 9(3) of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961. He has also placed on record the certified copy of the undertaking given by the petitioner duly signed by him before the Executing Court, and then certified copy of his statement wherein it is written-- and certified copy of the statement of surety Azhar Memooa, statement of Nasir Ahmad, Councillor and Abid Sharif ex-Councillor.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the decree of Rs.96,000 is recoverable from the judgment-debtor namely Tariq Bashir and that the execution is pending before the learned Executing Court, Daska and that they have no objection if the Executing Court arrests the judgment-debtor and acts according to law for the recovery of maintenance allowance. Their only grievance is that since the petitioner is not the judgment-debtor, therefore, he cannot bind himself for 'the recovery of decretal amount standing against his brother Tariq Bashir.
5. Undoubtedly the petitioner is not the judgment-debtor. He is only real brother of the judgment- debtor. Certified copy of all the documents placed by the learned counsel for the respondent show that in view of execution proceedings the petitioner was confined in the lock-up and thereupon respectables appeared before the learned Executing Court alongwith petitioner who executed a surety bond and the repectables made a statement that they are trying to affect compromise between the parties by a target date i.e. 15-9-1996 and if they are unable to do so, the Executing Court may arrest the petitioner again. Such a procedure is completely unwarranted by law. The Executing Court is guided by law and money recoverable as arrears of land revenue does not necessarily mean that the Revenue Court should act beyond law and adopt a coercive process completely unwarranted by law against a person who is not a judgment-debtor. Certified copy of all the documents made available to this Court by the learned counsel for the respondent show that the petitioner was arrested and confined in the civil prison and then was called to make a statement and besides the petitioner many respectables also appeared and made statement for their attempts to reconcile both the parties. The Executing Court is meant to act according to law and its jurisdiction is guided by law. The maintenance allowance decreed by the Family Court is not executable against a party who is not party to the suit. Even if it is assessed as land revenue any coercive process adopted by the Executing Court against third party and not the judgment- debtor is completely unwarranted by law and no weight is given to a statement of a person who is not party to the suit, even if he binds himself as surety, for the satisfaction of the decretal amount; when conditions are present that he is arrested put in civil prison and then brought before the Executing Court to make a statement to bind himself to stand as surety for judgment-debtor who is his real brother. How the Court can give weight to such a statement which is not made) independently and voluntarily rather is the outcome of coercion.
6. I accept this writ petition, set aside the order, dated 28-7-1996 and direct the Executing Court to proceed against the judgment-debtor strictly in accordance with law.