MUHAMMAD AKHTAR SABBIR, J.--- This revision petition has been filed to call in question the order dated 23.12.2002 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Attock, whereby, the order dated 17.12.2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge/Executing Court, Attock was maintained.
2. Facts giving rise to the present revision petition are to the effect that Muhammad Sadiq- respondent had filed a suit for declaration against the petitioner with regard to Khasra No. 617. The petitioner appeared in the Court and made a statement on 24.5.1993 that he will not make any construction over the suit property and on his statement the suit was disposed of. Respondent had filed an application under Order 21, -Rule 32, CPC which was contested by the petitioner and the same was accepted on 8.10.1995 by the learned Civil Judge, Attock. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Additional Distt. Judge, Attock which was also dismissed on 8.11.1999 and a writ petition was filed impugning the said order, which too was dismissed as withdrawn.
3. During the pendency of the execution petition in the Executing Court the petitioner had filed an objection petition, raising objection that the decree is not executable and the petitioner is a co- sharer of the property, therefore, no execution could be filed against him. Learned Civil Judge dismissed the objection petition on 17.12.2002. The appeal filed by the petitioner before the District judge also met with the same fate on 23.12.2002.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
5. The relevant provision of Order 21, Rule 32; CPC is reproduced for ready reference:- "Where the party against whom a decree for the specific performance of a contract, or for restitution of conjugal rights, or for an injunction, has been passed, has had an opportunity of obeying the decree and has wilfully failed to obey it, the decree may be enforced (in the case of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights by the attachment of his property or, in the case of a decree for the specific performance of a contract or for an injunction) by his detention in prison, or by the attachment of his property, or by both."
From the plain reading of the above-referred provision of law, it reveals that only a decree for specific performance of the contract or injunction if passed by the Court is to be executed provided the judgment-debtor wilfully failed to obey the same. The proceedings can be initiated only where a party against whom a decree had been passed an in the instant case no decree against the petitioner has been passed. He made the statement in the Court and on his under-taking the suit was disposed of.
6. Learned counsel for the reason Government has placed reliance on case of Muhammad Ashiq v.
Razia Begum (PLD 1982 Lah. 459) contending that the undertaking given by the petitioner is binding on him and non-observance of undertaking the order can be enforced through execution proceedings. In this case, Muhammad Ashiq, petitioner, had filed a suit for a permanent injunction against Mst. Razia Begum and milers, restraining them from interfering in his possession over certain land. After filing the written statement, the defendants-respondents made statements to the effect that they had nothing to do with the possession of the land in question and had no intention to interfere in the plaintiff's possession. They had also undertaken that they would never interfere in his possession. In view of this undertaking given by the defendants in the said suit, the said suit was dismissed by the Trial Court and the order of dismissal was challenged through an appeal which also met with the same fate. The revision petition filed against the orders of two Courts below met with failure. The above-referred case pertains to Sections 54 and 55 of the Specific Relief Act and the facts of which are not attracted to the case in hand.
7. The application under Order 21, Rule 32, CPC could not be moved, therefore, keeping in view the dictum laid down in the case of Muhammad Fazil (supra), the instant revision petition is accepted and the orders dated 23.12.2002 and 17.12.2002 passed by the two Courts below are set aside. The objection petition filed by the petitioner is accepted and the execution petition filed by the respondent is hereby dismissed.