2015 Y L R 1443


2015 Y L R 1443

[Lahore]

Before Mahmood Ahmad Bhatti, J

Mst. KANEEZ KANWAL alias KANEEZ ZAFAR---Petitioner

versus

Mst. SHEHNAZ BIBI---Respondent

Civil Revision No.750 of 2013, decided on 5th December, 2013.

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---

----Ss. 47 & 12(2)---Execution petition---Objection petition was dismissed by the Executing Court on the ground that all the questions and issues had already been settled by the competent court of law---Contention of applicant was that Executing Court was bound to frame issues and record evidence---Validity---Trial Court had already dealt with each and every aspect of the case of the applicant---Property owned by the applicant was different from that of the decree-holder---Application of applicant under S. 12(2), C.P.C. had already been dismissed and second round of litigation should not have been allowed to be started afresh---No justification was on record to entertain such objection petition---No need existed to renew the exercise of framing of issues and recording of evidence which had already been done in the application moved under S.12(2), C.P.C.---Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

            Ghulam Qadir through Legal Heirs v. Haji Munir Ahmad and others 1989 MLD 2503; Rai Muhammad Riaz v. Ejaz Ahmad and others 2013 YLR 1890 and Muhammad Shakir v. Dr. Amanullah and another 2013 YLR 2159 ref.

            Abdul Jabbar Khan Joyia for Petitioner.

            Mumtaz Ahmad Gillani for Respondent.

ORDER

            MAHMOOD AHMAD BHATTI, J.---Through this petition, Mst. Kaneez Kanwal has called into question the validity of the orders/judgments dated 16-7-2013 and 22-10-2013 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Layyah and an Additional District Judge, Layyah, respectively.

2.         The revision petition arises out of an objection petition filed by the petitioner, maintaining that she is owner in possession of land/property, in respect of which a decree was passed in favour of Mst. Shahnaz Bibi in the suit titled "Mst. Shahnaz Bibi v. Niaz Ahmad" vide judgment and decree dated 11-6-2010. It was further averred by her that she purchased the property in question through two registered sale deeds Nos.2053 dated 24-11-1996 and 3625 dated 15-12-2007, followed by Mutations Nos.645 attested on 20-1-2006 and 766 dated 30-6-2008. By virtue of the purchase made by her, the objection petitioner became owner of land measuring 6 marlas.

3.         It is pertinent to mention that earlier, the objection petitioner/the petitioner herein, had thrown challenge to the aforementioned judgment and decree dated 11-6-2010 passed in favour of Mst. Shahnaz Bibi by filing a petition under section 12(2), C.P.C. However, her petition was dismissed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Layyah vide a well-reasoned and well-argued order dated 4-5-2011. It is of significance that the said order was passed after framing of issues and recording of evidence produced by the parties.

            Being dissatisfied with the said order dated 4-5-2011, the petitioner herein filed a revision petition, but the same was also dismissed vide order dated 18-5-2012 passed by an Additional District Judge, Layyah. Ultimately, both the orders dated 4-5-2011 and 18-5-2012 passed by the courts below were challenged by Mst. Kaneez Kanwal, the petitioner herein through Writ Petition No.7464 of 2012. It was also dismissed by this court by the order dated 1-4-2013. Instead of challenging it any further, the petitioner again approached the learned Executing Court by filing an objection petition.

4.         As stated above, the petitioner failed to persuade the learned Executing Court to come round to her view. It was held by the learned Executing Court vide order dated 16-7-2013 that the objection petitioner sought to reagitate, all those questions and issues, which have already been settled by the competent courts of law, and all her contentions have already been rejected up to the Lahore High Court, Lahore. An appeal preferred thereagainst also met the same fate and for almost the same reasons, as is obvious from a perusal of the order dated 22-10-2013 passed by an Additional District Judge, Layyah.

5.         It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Executing Court was bound to frame issues and record evidence. According to him, both the courts below committed material irregularity in not following the procedure and the law on the subject. He placed reliance on the judgments reported as "Ghulam Qadir through Legal Heirs v. Haji Munir Ahmad and others" (1989 MLD 2503), "Rai Muhammad Riaz v. Ejaz Ahmad and others" (2013 YLR 1890) and "Muhammad Shakir v. Dr. Amanullah and another" (2013 YLR 2159). He further argued that the maintainability of the objection petition should not have been questioned by the courts below, especially when this court had observed in its order dated 1-4-2013 passed in Writ Petition No.7464 of 2012 that the petitioner might try her luck before a competent forum. He vociferously added that under the garb of execution of a judgment and decree dated 11-6-2010, the petitioner is being deprived of her valuable property. He elaborated that having purchased land measuring 6 marlas, the petitioner constructed a house on the land in question. By denying a remedy available to the petitioner under the law, she is not being dealt with in accordance with law. The approach so adopted by the courts below is in defiance of Article 4 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.

6.         Learned counsel for the decree-holder/respondent, Mst. Shahnaz Bibi has vehemently opposed, controverting each and every argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner. He put forward the argument that the stance of the petitioner to the effect that the decree dated 11-6-2010 was secured by the respondent by committing fraud and practising deception, has already been examined, and found to be untenable by all the courts up to this court. Therefore, the same pleas which failed to cut ice with the courts earlier could not be pressed into service by filing an objection petition.

7.         I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, perused the record appended to the revision petition and given anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by both the sides.

8.         It is lamentable and deplorable that the people keep on filing petitions/suits, reiterating the contentions, which already have received due consideration of the competent courts of law and are repelled by well-reasoned judgments/orders. In this way, they continue to hang Sword of Damocles over the heads of the decree-holders/successful parties and never let the proceedings conclude for good.

9.         In the earlier round of litigation, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Layyah had occasion to deal with each and every aspect of the case of the petitioner herein, and he had pronounced vide order dated 4-5-2011 that the property and land belonging to the petitioner is different from that of the decree-holder, Mst. Shahnaz Bibi (respondent herein). He was at pains to set out the boundaries of the two properties owned by Mst. Kaneez Kanwal and Mst. Shahnaz Bibi, the parties to the revision petition as well as parties to the petition under section 12(2), C.P.C. Having carried out this exercise, he had dismissed the petition of the petitioner herein under section 12(2), C.P.C. vide order dated 4-5-2011, and the revisional court upheld the same vide order dated 18-5-2012 by adopting the same logic and reasoning. Eventually, this court did not interfere with the findings recorded by the courts below by its order dated 1-4-2013 passed in Writ Petition No.7464 of 2012.

10.       This round of litigation should not have been allowed to be started afresh. There was no warrant to entertain such an objection petition in the first place. Even so, the courts below showed indulgence towards the petitioner and dismissed her objection petition vide detailed orders/ judgments dated 16-7-2013 and 22-10-2013 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Layyah and an Additional District Judge, Layyah, respectively.

11.       The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that issues should have been framed, and the petitioner afforded an opportunity to produce evidence in support of her pleas is plainly unsound, to say the least. Such an exercise has already been carried out by the courts below, when they were seized of an application moved by the petitioner under section 12(2), C.P.C. There was no need to renew this exercise just to please the petitioner. The judgments relied upon by him proceeded on their own facts, and have no application to the facts of the case in hand.

12.       In view of the above discussion, and for the foregoing reasons, the revision petition is devoid of any merits, which is hereby dismissed.

AG/K-13/L                                                                                          Revision dismissed.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

P L D 2016 Supreme Court 358

P L D 2016 Supreme Court 358 Present: Mian Saqib Nisar, Iqbal Hameedur Rehman and Tariq Parvez, JJ Sahabzadi MAHARUNISA and another---Appellants/Petitioners Versus Mst. GHULAM SUGHRAN and another---Respondents Civil Appeals Nos. 1176 and 1177 of 2015, and Civil Petition No.1428-L of 2015.           (Against the order dated 11-6-2015 of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench passed in C.M. Nos. 385, 388/2009 and 2051 of 2015) (a) Words and phrases --- ----"Merge" and "merger"---Definitions.             Chambers English Dictionary 7th Edn.; Oxford English Dictionary (1933); Corpus Juris Secoundum (1936) and The Constitution of India by Prof. S.R.Bhansali ref. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) --- ----S.12(2)---Application under S.12(2), C.P.C, filing of---Forum---"Court which passed the final judgment, decree or order"---Principles---For all legal purposes, it was the final decree/order of the last Court in ...
Read more

P L D 2009 Lahore 362

P L D 2009 Lahore 362 Before Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, Tariq Shamim and M.A. Zafar, JJ GHULAM MURTAZA and another---Appellants Versus THE STATE---Respondent Criminal Appeal No.284-J of 2008, decided on 27th March, 2009. (a) Administration of justice--- ----Principles---Quintessence of the Civilization's evolution and growth in the legal field is a progression from dispensation of justice according to the principle of "justice, equity and good conscience" to "justice according to law"---Rationale or raison d'etre for this momentum, quite easy to discern and comprehend, is that justice ought not to be administered according to whims, caprice or subjective standards of an individual judge but it should be dispensed according to some codified or stipulated standards so as to render the outcome consistent and reasonably predictable---Predictability of judicial response to an action or inaction of a person is important because, by and large, people livi...
Read more

2010 SCMR 1181, Supreme Court Allowed Superdari

2010 SCMR 1181 [Supreme Court of Pakistan] Present: Nasir-ul-Mulk, Raja Fayyaz Ahmad and Jawwad S. Khawaja, JJ ALLAH DITTA----Petitioner Versus THE STATE----Respondent Criminal Petition No.461 of 2009, decided on 12th February, 2010. (On appeal from the judgment of Lahore High Court Lahore dated 3-6-2009 passed in Criminal Appeal No.674 of 2009). (a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)--- ----S. 74, Proviso---`Any private individual'---Meaning and scope ---Phrase "any private individual" is to be read ejusdem generis with the preceding specific words, "accused, or his associate or relative' ---By application of the rule the "private individual" mentioned in the proviso refers to such an `individual who has some nexus with the offender or the offence-I-Innocent owner of the vehicle used in the commission of the crime having no nexus whatsoever, either with the accused or the crime, would not fall within the scope of the ph...
Read more