A.I Sher, father of the respondents in this civil revision filed a petition for ejectment of the present petition from the suit premises. This petition was contested and was allowed on 15-12-1969. An appeal was filed against the said order but was withdrawn. Execution petition was filed on 24-3- 1970. While the execution petition was pending, on 22-3-1971 the petitioners filed a civil suit seeking a declaration that the said ejectment order is illegal. In the plaint it was stated that the ejectment order is illegal as the Rent Controller had demarcated the suit property and proceeded to pass an order of ejectment. The suit was contested. Objection was taken that the suit is barred under section 15 of the Punjab Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 as also section 47, C.P.C. The learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 31-1-1981 dismissed the suit after recording findings on the issue as to bar of section 47, C.P.C. It was held that the questions raised in the suit can be decided only by the Executing Court. The appeal filed by the petitioners was heard by the learned District Judge, Jhang who dismissed the same on 17-12-1983. , 2: Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the bar of section 47, C.P.C. Was not applicable.
Learned counsel for respondent No. 14 and Mr. Zainul Abiddin, Advocate for the applicant in C. M. 1- C of 1998 oppose the civil revision and support the impugned judgments and decrees.
3. I have gone through the records, with the assistance of the learned counsel present. I find that while the suit was so pending the petitioners in fact filed an application under section 47, C.P.C. This application was contested before the Executing Court. The learned Executing Court dismissed the objection petition vide order, dated 31-7-1975. It was observed in the order that the ejectment order passed by the learned Rent Controller was upheld in appeal and thereafter by this Court as also the Supreme Court of Pakistan. Before the Executing Court the case of the petitioners was that the ejectment order cannot be executed as the petitioners have acquired the suit premises.
4. Against the said order, dated 31-7-1975 an appeal was filed which was heard by the learned District Judge, Jhang who dismissed the same on 25-6-1976. The matter was left at that time and the order of learned District Judge was not challenged any further, instead another application under section 47, C.P.C. Was filed on 7-7-1977 repeating the same grounds. The application was dismissed by the learned Executing Court on 28-7-1977. An appeal was filed which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jhang on 27-6-1979. Again the order was not challenged any further.
5. The above-noted facts which have been gleaned from the copies of the several orders/judgments available on the record, make one shudder as to how in the present case an ejectment order passed as far back by the Rent Controller as in the year 1969 and upheld by the Supreme Court of Pakistan has remained unexecuted for 31 years.
6. Coming to the contention of the learned counsel under section 17 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 a Rent Controller executes a decree as if it were a decree of a Civil Court. It has been consensus of the judicial authority in Pakistan as expressed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan is the case of Haji Abdul Wali Khan and another v. Muhammad Hanif and another (1991 SCM R 2457) that a Rent Controller while executing an ejectment order as a Civil Court decree is vested with all powers as are enjoyed by a Civil Court for effectively executing a decree. The procedural provisions contained in Rules 100 and 101 of Order XXI, C.P.C. Are a part of procedural law relating to execution of a decree and can be invoked in execution of an order passed by a Rent Controller. The suit which primarily raised a question that the ejectment is being sought from a property not vesting in the landlord was completely barred by section 47, C.P.C. Read with Order XXI, Rule 103, C.P.C. All questions of title and possession are to be decided by the Court executing the decree and a suit is, barred.
7. In the present case what has happened is that during pendency of the suit the petitioners did in fact invoke the jurisdiction of the learned Rent Controller (as an Executing Court) under section 47 read with Order XXI, Rules 100/101, C.P.C. And remained unsuccessful not once but twice.
8. Needless to state here that an order passed by Rent Controller and upheld in appeal as well as in the second appeal is final by virtue of section 15 of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 and cannot even otherwise be questioned. However, in the present case the matter has already been decided under section 47, C.P.C. By the Executing Court on more than one occasion.
9. Learned counsel confronted with the said position emerging from the record came out with the argument that the petition under section 47 C.P.C. Has not been properly dealt with by the Executing Court. I am afraid on both the occasions the petitioners opted to rest content after the dismissal of their first appeal against the orders rejecting their petition under section 47, C.P.C. It is not for this Court hearing the revision petition arising out of the civil suit filed by the petitioners to dilate upon the decision given by the Executing Court and upheld by the Court of first appeal.
10. This civil revision is accordingly without any force. In fact it is absolutely frivolous. It is dismissed with costs throughout. The counsel fee is fixed at Rs.25,000. A copy of this order be immediately sent to the learned Rent Controller/Executing Court, Jhang with a direction to complete the execution proceedings by delivery of possession of the premises in question to the decree-holders and to file a report with the Deputy Registrar (J) of this Court.
H.B.T./P-40/L