JUDGMENT TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.- Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 6.10.1999 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, whereby Civil Revision No. 463 of 1999 filed by the petitioners was dismissed.
2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that respondent No. 1 Malik Hareem Bakhsh filed a recovery suit against Malik Shakir Hussain, father of the present petitioners, wherein a consent decree was passed on 9.1.1996. Respondent No. 1 filed an execution petition in which warrants of attachment of the disputed house were issued, and the property was put to auction. The present petitioners, who were sons of the judgment-debtor, filed an objection petition which was dismissed on 24.3.1997.
Thereafter, they filed second objection petition instead of resorting to Order IX, Rule 9, CPC for restoration of the objection petition earlier dismissed. This too was dismissed. The petitioners then filed an appeal and the same was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Multan.
Thereupon, Civil Revision No. 181 of 1998 was filed before the Lahore High Court at Multan, which too met the same fate as it was dismissed by a learned Single Judge vide his judgment dated 17.6.1998.
After the dismissal of the civil revision, the petitioners moved an application, which was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, Multan, through his order dated 22.6.1998. The petitioners preferred an appeal assailing the above order, which too was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Multan, through a detailed judgment dated 21.5.1999, Civil Revision filed against the above judgment has also been dismissed through the impugned judgment. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal.
3. We have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire materia! Placed on record with their assistance. We have noticed that in the case in hand consent decree was passed as far back as on 9.1.1996 and the same has attained finality. The petitioners in a collusive manner by filing different applications are trying to frustrate the execution of the above decree. The two Courts below have recorded a finding against the petitioners which has been maintained by a learned Single judge of the Lahore High Court while dismissing the civil revision. Leamed counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any legal infirmity in the impugned judgment warranting interference by this Court.
Resultantly, for what has been stated above, the present petition being without any merit is dismissed and leave declined.