' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.---The petition seeks leave to appeal against impugned judgment dated 2-5-2002 passed by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench in Civil Revision No, 31 of 2001.
2. The relevant facts of the case are that on 25-3-1997 the respondent (decree-holder) filed a suit before the Judge, Family Court, Rawalpindi, for maintenance against her husband, Dawood Abdul Khaliq (hereinafter referred to as the judgment-debtor). The suit was decreed by judgment and the decree dated 23-12-1998. The respondent filed an execution petition on 18-1-1999. The Family Court passed an interim order dated 14-4-1999 for the attachment of the property of the judgment- debtor bearing No,36, Khayabane-Faisal Colony, Airport Link Road, Chaklala, Rawalpindi. A warrant of attachment of the said Property issued on 23-4-1999 by the Executing Court was carried out by the bailiff on 28-4-1999. Subsequently, the Judge, Family Court passed an order dated 12-5-2000 for the auction of the said property measuring 2 Kanals and 8 Marlas out of 2 Kanals and 15 Marlas.
3. The petitioner claiming to be a vendee under an agreement to sell dated 30-6-1998 from one Muhammad Ashraf filed an objection petition dated 19-5-2000 against the attachment/auction of the said property which was dismissed by the Judge, Family Court on 31-7-2000. The appeal of the petitioner thereagainst was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi by judgment dated 4-11-2000. The petitioner filed a Civil Revision No,31 of 2001 which was dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 2-5-2002 by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that an agreement dated 10-10-1996 to sell the disputed property had been duly executed by the judgment-debtor in favour of Muhammad Ashraf who in turn executed another agreement to sell dated 30-6-1998 in favour of the petitioner.
Therefore, orders for the attachment and auction of the property could not be made by the Executing Court in view of the provisions of section 64, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Reliance was placed on the cases of Mohiuddin Molla v. The Province of East Pakistan and others (PLD 1962 SC 119), Athinarayana Konar and another v. V. Subramania Ayyar (AIR 1942 Madras 67), Rango Ramchandra Kulkarni v. Gurlingappa Chinnapa Muthal and others (AIR 1941 Bombay 198) and Maung San Pwe and another v. Hamadanee and others (AIR 1925' Rangoon 382) in support of his contentions. He contended that the Executing Court had not satisfied the requirements of Order XXI, rule 54 of the C.P.C. For attachment of the property. The High Court Rules and Orders contained in Chapter 12-H, Volume I were disregarded. The learned counsel lastly submitted that a sale-deed in respect of the attached property had also been executed in favour of the petitioner on 2-6-1999.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length. We find that there is no evidence on record to prove the genuineness and authenticity of the alleged agreements to sell dated 10-10- 1996 and 30-6-1998 purported to have been executed by the judgment-debtor and by Muhammad Ashraf respectively in respect of the sale of the attached property. The sale-deed was allegedly executed on 2-6-1999 after the attachment of the property in dispute. Therefore, the sale-deed dated 2-6-1999, even if executed, was rightly held, by all the Courts, to be invalid. The judgments relied on by the learned counsel in his behalf are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case.
6. As to the other argument of the learned counsel nothing was brought on the record to show any non-compliance of the provisions of Order XXI, rule 54, C.P.C. Or of the High Court Rules and Orders.
The learned counsel failed to point out with any particularity as to how the attachment of the property by the Family Court was vitiated. In the absence of any proof to the contrary we have to presume that all legal formalities had been duly fulfilled by the Family Court in the process of attachment of the property. Reference may usefully be made to the case of Muhammad Akbar Khan v. Mian Musharaf Shah and another (AIR 1934 Privy Council 217). In the case of Ghulam Abbas v. Mst. Zohra Bibi and another (PLD 1972 SC 337), this Court had held that the provisions of Order XXI, rule 54, C.P.C. Were not mandatory and substantial compliance thereof was enough. Even otherwise, the strict compliance with such provisions of the C.P.C. May not be insisted upon as its application has been excluded by the provisions of section 17 of the Family Courts Act, 1964 (Act No,XXXV of 1964). Moreover, the Special provisions of section 13 of the said Act provide for the execution of a decree passed by a Family Court. Similar view was taken in the case of Syed Muhamamd v. Mst. Zeenat Bjbi (PLD 2001 SC 128).
7. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any error of law' or jurisdiction. The concurrent findings of fact recorded by all the Courts do not call for any interference by this Court in the facts and circumstances of the case. This is not a fit case for grant of leave under Article 185(3) of the'
Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Since civil revision of the petitioner was dismissed by the High Court, therefore, we did not consider it necessary to examine the question of its maintainability by reference to the provisions of the Family Courts Act, 1964.
8. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition for leave to appeal and the same is dismissed accordingly.