1. ' Mr. Shahid Qadeer learned counsel for the Judgment-debtor requests for adjournment on the ground that the latter is unwell. On perusal of the file, the request does not appear to be bona fide and is hereby rejected. The reasons for rejection of the request and disposal of the Execution Application are as follows: ' The brief facts relating to the execution application as available. From the documents on the file are that Abdul Hameed, plaintiff/decree-holder filed Suit No, 1061 of 1980 against Panwhar Construction and others in this High Court for specific performance and injunction claiming, inter alia, the following reliefs:
(a) For declaration that the cancellation of plaintiff's allotment in respect of House No, R-598 by the defendant and the alleged allocation/allotment of the same in favour of defendant No,5 is mala fide, illegal and without lawful authority.
(aa) For specific performance of the contract between the plaintiff and the defendants for finalization of the contract firstly by executing a lease in favour of plaintiff in respect of House No,R- 598 so that the plaintiff may arrange the loan from the House Building Finance Corporation in the sum of Rs, 32,484 including cost of extra work which will be payable to the defendants and in the alternative to make the above arrangement through the officer of this Hon'ble Court.
(b) Permanent injunction directing the defendants to take actions which are necessary to complete the transaction and contract between the plaintiff and defendants including making arrangement of loan from House Building Finance Corporation or any other loan giving Agency.
(c) Permanent injunction restraining the defendants and all person claiming through them and acting under them from disposing of or otherwise transferring the possession of House No, R-598.
(cc) Decree for possession as against all the defendants for delivery of possession of House No,R- 598, Adam Town, Sector 11-C-1, North Karachi Township to the plaintiff.
2. 'After recording the evidence of the parties and hearing the arguments of their learned counsels, the Court was pleased to pass Judgment in favour of the plaintiff. The decree dated 27-3-1989 reads as follows.
3. "That the plaintiff shall deposit a sum of Rs, 34,000 (Rupees thirty four thousand only) in Court within 15 days from the date of judgment viz. 27-3-1989 along with original form of lease etc. In case he does not deposit said amount within 15 days the suit shall stand dismissed. On the plaintiff's so depositing the amount the defendants Nos.1 to 4 shall be liable to execute lease deed in his favour. In case the defendants Nos.1 to 4 do not execute the lease deed within 15 clays from the date of the deposit the plaintiff shall be at liberty to get the same executed by the Nazir of this Court.
4. ' It is hereby further ordered that on the plaintiff's depositing the amount of Rs,34,000 in the Court the allotment/allocation in favour of the defendant No,5 shall stand cancelled. The defendant No,5 and on his failure defendants Nos.1, 2 and 3 shall, however, be entitled to receive the amount of Rs,34,000 (Rupees thirty four thousand only) deposited by the plaintiff in this Court, after paying court-fee. The balance of the amount defendant No,5 shall be entitled to recover from defendants Nos.1 to 3."
5. ' Mst. Munawar Hadi, defendant No 5/J. D. No,5, filed High Court Appeal No, 226 of 1989 against the Judgment and Decree, dated 27-3-1998. The said appeal was dismissed by a learned Division Bench by Judgment, dated 20-11-1989. Being aggrieved by the Judgment in appeal, Mst. Munawar Hadi filed Civil Petition No,106-K of 1999 in the Supreme Court of Pakistan which was dismissed on 16-7-1999. Meanwhile, on 29-6-1999, plaintiff/DH filed the above application for execution of the Decree against J.D Nos.1 to 7 to "execute the lease in favour of the Decree Holder in respect of House No,R-598, Adam Town, Sector 11-C/1, New Karachi and on their failure to do so, KDA may be directed to execute lease deed in favour of the Decree Holder and J,D No,5 may be evicted from the premises in question and the possession of the same may be handed over to the Decree Holder under Order 21, rules 34 and 35, C.P.C." A notice of the execution was issued to the judgment- debtors for 30-8 1999. On the said date, on the request of Mr. Usman Ghani Rashid. Counsel for Mst.
6. Hadi. J.D No,5 hearing was adjuring to 1-9-1999. On 1-9-1999 the matter was adjourned by consent to 15-9-1999. On the aforesaid date, Mr. Usman Ghani Rashid filed objection to the execution application and the matter was adjourned to 7-10-1999. The objections filed by J.D No,5., inter alia read as follows: "(2) The decree cannot be executed for possession of the demised property, which relief was specifically sought and not granted by the trial Court.
(3) That the decree even otherwise cannot be executed as the property which was subject-matter of the suit in the form prescribed in the plaint does not exist. Two further floors were added by the answering judgment-debtor which was not objected to by the applicant in any manner whatsoever.
(4) That the Judgment-debtor No,4 having died, no further proceedings can take place without joining his legal heirs."
7. ' A counter-affidavit to the objections filed by J.D No,5 was filed by decree-holder wherein the decree-holder denied the legal objections of judgment-debtor No,5 and stated, that a decree for specific performance of the 'contract includes the dccree for possession also and that the said point was raised by J.D.No,5 before that Appellate Division Bench of the High Court and the Supreme Court of Pakistan but the same was rejected. With regard to the allegations of construction of two additional floors, the same was denied. As regards the death of J.D No,2, it was stated that to the knowledge of the decree-holder the said judgment-debtor had not expired but had only suffered a heart attack and was admitted in a hospital. The judgment-debtor filed a rejoinder affidavit denying the contentions of the decree-holder without filling any proof of death of J.D No, 2 in her support. The hearing of the execution application was filed in Court on 7-10-1999, 1- 11-1999, 6-12-1999, 20-12-1999, 18-1-2000, 10-2-2000, 13-3-2000. 29-3-2000, 4-4-2000 (adjourned on payment of costs of Rs,3000 by Mst Hadi), 23-5-2000 and 7-8-2000, but was adjourned for various reasons including the ground either that Mr. Usman Ghani Rashid was indisposed or that he was busy before another Bench. On 23-5-2000. Mr.Usman Ghani Rashid contended that the execution application may be allowed to the extent of registration of sale-deed but not for possession as the said relief had not been allowed by the trial Court. The Court was of the view that a decree for specific performance in the ordinary course would follow possession; however, on the request of Mr. Usman Ghani Rashid, the matter was adjourned, as he needed time to argue the. Legal objection raised by him. On 7-8-2000, it was adjourned with the direction that the execution application be fixed on a date other than Monday (Probably for the reason that it is difficult to hear lengthy arguments on Mondays). Consequently, the matter has been fixed in Court today which is a Friday.
8. ' On perusal of the file it transpires that this execution was filed on 29-6-1999 and has now been pending for one year and three months approximately. It has been adjourned on several grounds including that Mr. Usman Ghani Rashid was indisposed or was busy before another Bench when the matter was called for hearing. The only short point involved in the execution application is whether a decree for specific performance of a contract for sale of property includes possession of the property therewith? Mr. Azhar submitted that this point was specifically considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan and decided against Mst. Hadi. He has produced the certified copy of the Judgment, the relevant portion of which reads as follows: " With regard to the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no decree for possession has been granted in favour of respondent, we would only like to observe that the suit for specific performance filed by the respondent to enforce the agreement between respondent No,1 and respondents 2 to 5 has been decreed, and therefore, all consequences arising from such decree in favour of respondent No,1 would automatically follow."
9. ' It may be pointed out here that respondent No,1 in the Supreme Court was Abdul Hameed, the Decree Holder herein: ' In Surah Hud, Ayat 85, Allah has enjoined: "And any people! Give full measure and weight in Justice and reduce not the things that are due to the people...."
10. ' According to the Tafseer of the Holy Qur'an by Moulana Shabbir Ahmed Usmani, the Ayat does not only deal with correct and proper measurement of weight and size in the course of business but also enjoins the Muslims not to be dishonest and unjust and deprive others of their lawful rights. It is surprising to note that in spite of the clear judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan and the injunctions of the Holy Qur'an referred to above. Mr. Usman Ghani Rashid, learned counsel for J.D No,5, still contended and insisted that he would like to argue that a decree for specific performance in the ordinary cause does not include possession of the property. This not only shows disrespect to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan but is also a clear violation of the Injunction of the Holy Qur'an that Muslims ought not to reduce or deprive people of their lawful dues. It would not be out of place to mention here that Mr. Usman Ghani Rashid, learned counsel for Mt. Hadi, the objector herein, had not only appeared for her before the trial Court and in the High Court Appeal but also before the Supreme Court of Pakistan where he advanced this contention which was repelled by the Supreme Court and he still unabashedly wanted to argue the same point before the Executing. Court. He should not have forgotten that "Counsel is concerned in the proper administration of justice and owes an overriding duty to the Court, to the standards of his profession, and to the public, to ensure that it is achieved. Thus, counsel must not mislead the Court..." (See Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edn., Vol.3(1), paragraph 4(5). His attempt to argue a point of law which had already been rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court amounted to concealment of fact and law and thus, he allowed himself to be "used as an Advocate by those who betray their trust" which is prohibited by the Holy Qur'an (See Surah An-Nisa IV . Ayat 105) By such conduct his duty to the Court was subordinated to his duty to his client which as an Advocate and an Officer of the Court he should have abstained from doing.(See Judgment dated 14-7-2000 of a learned Division Bench of this Court in C.P. No, D-214 of 1999 Muhammad Siddique v. Ruqya Shaman and others. After the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan his attempt to argue the rejected point of law is patently mala fide and rejected. The request for adjournment cannot be entertained and is declined. Consequently for reasons stated above the execution application is allowed as prayed.
11. Mr. Qadeer requests for six months' time to implement the decree of the High Court. More than 20 years have already passed since the filing of the suit and more than 11 years have passed since the passing the decree without any fruitful result. The request for six months' time to implement the decree is manifestly vexatious to the knowledge of defendant No,5 the request for six months' time is also rejected and the judgment-debtors are hereby directed to execute the lease and hand over vacant peaceful possession of the property to the decree-holder within 30 days from today failing which the Nazir is directed, upon application in this behalf by the decree-holder, to eject the judgment-debtors without notice and with police aid, if necessary and hand over possession of the same to the decree-holder. The judgment-debtors shall also pay punitive costs of Rs,20,000 under section 35-A, C.P.0 to the decree-holder for raising vexatious defence and unnecessarily delaying the execution of the decree finally adjudged and confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
12. Ex-application allowed with costs.