' Messsrs Comrade Construction Company, respondent, filed suit for recovery of Rs,22,05,538 in the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Kohistan. The suit was decreed vide judgment/decree dated 5- 6-1999.
2. The decree-holder filed execution petition (No,3/10) in the Execution Court (Senior Civil Judge, Kohistan) for the recovery of decretal amount. During the execution proceedings the learned Executing Court vide Order dated 7-9-1999 attached vehicles and development funds of the petitioners. The petitioners have now challenged order dated 7-9-1999 through revision petition in hand.
3. Qazi Muhammad Ghazanfar the learned A.A.-G. Argued that section 82, C.P.C. Provides the procedure for execution of a money against the Government. The learned Execution Court did not follow the procedure as laid down in section 82, C.P.C., in that: no specific time was given to the Government for payment of the decretal amount as prescribed in the said section. He placed reliance on Punjab Province v. Shah Abdul Ghani MLD 1988 page 2912.
4. It was further argued that the Court which passed the decree did not prepare the decree-sheet as provided under the law. In absence of the decree-sheet the decree could not be executed. This fact was brought to the notice of the learned Executing Court but it ignored that there was no decree-sheet available on file and passed the impugned order dated 7-9-1999. He prayed that on acceptance of revision petition the Impugned order dated 7-9-1999 be set aside.
5. On the Other 'hand, Mr. Tariq Khan Tanoli, Advocate, the learned-counsel representing the decree-holder argued that on 5-6-1999 a decree for recovery of Rs,22,05,538 was passed in favour of the decree-holder when award dated 14-5-1996 was made as rule of the Court. On 5-6-1999, on institution of the execution petition, notice was issued to the respondent-Government for 14-6-1999 on which date Imdad Hussain Head Clerk C&W produced Letter No,3172, dated 10-6-1999 whereas decree-holder submitted application for attachment of the accounts. On the next date of hearing on 19-6-1999, XEN, C&W requested for grant of time enabling him to make the payment. Thereafter, on 22-7-1999 once again the representative of the Department assured the Executing Court that decretal amount would be soon paid to the decree-holder. On 31-7-1999 further time was sought for the payment and eventually on 7-9-1999 Vehicle No,KH-227 and amount lying in National Bank of Pakistan in the XEN's amount was attached. Sufficient time was granted to the respondents for payment of the decretal amount but they failed to make the payment. Reliance was placed on Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Works v. Mrs. Khalid Nazir 1991 CLC 563 and Pakistan through Director Works v. Sarwar and Company 1988 CLC page 1817. Repelling the second argument of the learned A.A.-G. That there was no decree-sheet available on the Court file the learned counsel stated that decree-sheet had been prepared by the Court which passed the decree and copy of the decree-sheet was submitted to the Executing Court, hence the impugned order was passed.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. So far the first argument of the learned A.A.-G. That provisions of section 82, C.P.C. Were violated has no force in it. It is evident from the order sheet of the learned Executing Court that execution petition was filed on 5-6-1999 and till 7-9-1999, the petitioners-judgment-debtors had been seeking adjournments for making payment to the decree-holder, sufficient time had been given to make the payment of the decretal amount but the same was not paid. In a case Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Works v Mrs. Khalid Nazir 1991 CLC 563, the Court had given 15 days to Government to satisfy the decree but had failed to do so. It was held:-- "Sections 79 to 82 of the Code of Civil Procedure are procedural in nature. These do not create any substantive right or liability. The object of section 80 is to give time to the Government or the Public Officer, at the highest level to consider the matter involved, and in case the suit has already been instituted to determine whether to defend the same or to contest the claim. Section 82 of the Code is the further extension of this very principle. This object is to allow a final chance to the Government or the Public Officer concerned to satisfy the decree before the execution is ordered against it/him. In the present case 15 days' time had been granted to the Government to satisfy the decree and admittedly it failed to do so. It had a right under the procedural technicality provided in section 82 of the Code to a period of three months further to consider about the satisfaction and it was only then that the execution could have issued (warrants of possession in the present case).
Since the time application was moved by the Government (4-10-1990) much water has flowed down the bridges and yet to insist upon the compliance of the technicality would be nothing than frustrating the decree for as long a time as possible. This cannot be allowed. The provisions of procedural law as to the technicality must be liberally interpreted.
' There is another angle to look at the problem. Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, gives the guideline. All citizens are equal before law and are entitled to equal protection of law. The actions of Government may consist of transactions which may be carried on by private individuals in which no element of exercise of sovereign powers is involved. Examples can be, transactions relating to trade, commerce or contracts. The present is a case of such nature-hiring a house for a specific period. If in such a transaction decree has been passed against the Government, 15 days time within the meaning of section 82 allowed to satisfy the decree, the same having not been satisfied and in spite of the full knowledge of the decree, more than one year having passed from the dismissal of the appeal (of the Government) (since 9-12- 1989) the petitioner/judgment-debtor Government cannot be given any allowance. In view of the principle of equality before the law, the provisions of section 82 of the Code require to be interpreted and applied liberally."
' Likewise in a case Pakistan through Director Works and Chief Engineer Army v. Messrs Sarwar & Co.
(Pvt.) Ltd., it was held, that provision of section 82 of C.P.C. Is mandatory in nature and it casts a duty upon an Executing Court to make a report to Provincial Government if the decree is not satisfied against Government/Government Functionaries within the time specified in it and that it empowers the Executing Court to proceed with execution proceedings after expiry of three months computable from the date of report if Government/its functionaries/judgment-debtor fails to satisfy the decree." As mentioned above, from 5-6-1999 the date the execution petition was instituted till 7-9-1999 a period of 3 months had elapsed. Likewise, the revision petition in hand was instituted on 5-9-1999 and till date the Government Functionaries have failed to pay the decretal amount despite various requests to grant time for the said payment.
8. So far as the argument of the learned A.A.-G. That the decree-sheet was not available on the Executing Court file is concerned, this argument too, has no force. The learned counsel appearing for the decree-holder produced photostat copy of the decree-sheet prepared on 16-10-1999.
Perusal of the order-sheets would reveal that judgment-debtors had not raised such an objection before the executing Court till copy of the decree sheet was produced before it, therefore, they cannot be allowed to agitate such an objection at revisional stage more specially when copy of the decree sheet has also been produced in this Court. The learned A.A.-G. When confronted with the copy of the decree-sheet had no answer to put forward.
9. The learned A.A.-G. Was not able to show that the impugned order was without jurisdiction, or illegal or the learned Executing Court had failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it or committed any material irregularity. Resultantly, the revision petition in hand is dismissed alongwith C.Ms.