' HAMID ALI MIRZA, J.---This civil petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated 6-6-2000 in Writ Petition No,1116 of 1998 filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, which was dismissed by a learned Judge in Chambers of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench.
2. The brief facts of the case are that an ejectment order was passed in respect of a Shop No,D-165 situated in D-Block, Attock City, against the petitioner by the Civil Judge and Rent Controller as per his judgment dated 17-7-1997, against which Civil Appeal No,83 of 1997 was preferred by the petitioner, which too was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge Attock as per his judgment dated 4-11-1997. The said judgment was challenged in S.A.O. 2 of 1998 before Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, which was also dismissed by the learned Judge in Chambers as per his judgment dated 6-6-2000. The learned Additional District Judge while dismissing the appeal on 4- 11-1997 had given two months' time to the petitioner for handing over the possession of the shop premises to the respondent. The respondent/landlord is said to have filed an execution application on 5-1-1998 before the Executing Court for possession of the shop premises in terms of the ejectment order passed by Rent Controller and maintained up to the level of the High Court. The Executing Court issued writ of possession and the respondent/decree-holder was put in possession of the shop premises in terms of the order of issuance of writ of possession passed on 6-1-1998. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No,1116 of 1998 and challenged his dispossession and orders in respect of issuance of writ of possession by the Executing Court on the ground that the appellate Court while dismissing petitioner's appeal had granted two months' time with effect from 4-11-1997, which period was to expire on 5-1-1998, therefore, issuance of writ of possession on 5-11- 1998 was unlawful and illegal. The said writ petition was dismissed as per impugned judgment.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the caveator, so also perused the record.
4. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that period of two months was to expire on 5-1-1998, therefore, issuance of writ of possession on the same date was illegal, consequently the order of the Rent Controller was illegal having been made in great haste and with mala fide intention. He further submitted that action be taken against the learned Civil Judge for having shown unwarranted haste in issuing the writ of possession with mala fide intention against the petitioner. The learned counsel for the caveator has controverted the said allegations and has referred to the documents on record.
5. We do not find substance and merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Admittedly, the petitioner was given two months period to hand over the vacant possession to the respondent by the appellate Court on 4-11-1997. Two months would mean 60 days. It would mean that the petitioner would be entitled to have 26 days of the month of November, 1997, 31st days of December, 1997 and 3 days of the month of January, 1998 to complete 60 days. In the circumstances, 3rd January, 198 would be the last day for the petitioner to retain the possession in terms of the order dated 4-11-1997 passed by the appellate Court, consequently the execution application could have been moved even on 4th of January, 1998 by the decreee- holder/respondent. Even if it be assumed that the execution application was moved on 5th January, 1998, then also same having been moved after the period of 60 days as granted by the appellant Court, the execution application would be competent, consequently order of the issuance of the writ of possession even on 5-1-1998 by the Executing Court was quite lawful and legal. Though the learned Civil Judge, when called by the learned High Court Judge, stated on oath before him that the execution application by the respondent/decree-holder was moved on 6-1- 1998, but due to mistake of Ahmad in his report it was mentioned as 5-1-1998, which was a clerical mistake. There is no bar under the law to issue writ of possession soon after the expiry or time for handing over of possession to the landlord granted by the Rent Controller or by any other competent Court. The High Court in paragraph 3 of the impugned judgment has observed:-- ' "Having heard the learned Civil Judge and perusing the record myself, I am satisfied that no illegality was committed by the learned executing Court. This apart, on one of the dates when this Constitution petition was laid before my learned brother Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, J. As this Court was on leave, his lordship directed an inquiry to be made into the allegations levelled by the petitioner's learned counsel by the learned District Judge, Attock. The learned District Judge, Attock after inquiring into the matter, came to the conclusion that no fraud, forgery or tampering was committed by any one in any paper. If at all anything could be said against the landlord, it could be nothing but that he acted in a little haste by launching the execution petition immediately after the expiry of the period of two months granted to the tenant and the learned Executing Court immediately executed the order of ejectment. The learned District Judge in his inquiry concluded that this was the only thing which could be said against the learned Executing Court. All said and done. I am of the considered view that no illegality was committed as alleged by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The wrong date mentioned by the Ahmad in his report as 5-1-1998 was only a clerical mistake which was being exploited by the petitioner and his learned counsel. The Constitution petition is wholly without force and the same is dismissed as such."
6. We find that no illegality was committed by the learned Civil Judge and Rent Controller. In the circumstances no action could be ordered to be taken against the learned Civil Judge. The learned Judge in Chambers has given cogent and valid reasons, therefore, no exception could be taken to the impugned finding arrived at by the learned Judge, consequently this petition has no merits, which is hereby dismissed.