2018 PLP 1384 (CLC)

AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J.

Through this writ petition petitioner who is decree-holder of part of the suit property, on the basis of compromise in a suit for specific performance, has challenged the order passed by the learned trial court dated 11.12.2009 whereby an application filed by one of the judgment-debtors/respondent No. 3 under sections 152 and 153 of the C.P.C. was accepted whereby it was ordered to the concerned revenue officials to correct the record after deleting Khasra Nos. 648 and 649 and the order of learned revisional court dated 4.7.2010 has been challenged whereby revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length on 25.9.2017 and 26.9.2017 and gone through the record appended with this writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the judgment and decree dated 08.11.2000 attained finality when no appeal against the said judgment and decree was filed and further the respondent and others filed objection petition against the execution of decree, they also filed an application under section 12(2) of the C.P.C., a review petition, a suit, a complaint under section 420 of P.P.C. and when all the abovesaid proceedings ended in dismissal, they filed an application under sections 152 and 153 of the C.P.C., which is subject matter of this writ petition, with a delay of about 8 years, therefore, states that the application was not competent. Prays for acceptance of the instant writ petition.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent while relying upon "Baqar v. Muhammad Rafique and others" (2003 SCMR 1401) and "Ministry of Inter Provincial Coordination v. Major (R) Ahmad Nadeem Sadal and others" (2014 CLC 600) states that the application was competent when the applicant one of the judgment debtors wanted that from the sale deed executed through the representative of the Court for execution of the decree for specific performance, the Khasra numbers as well as specification of the property have been deleted on the ground that same have been dishonestly mentioned against the judgment and decree. Learned counsel for the respondent further states that the earlier proceedings initiated in the shape of review, suits, application under section 12(2) of the C.P.C., were not competent, therefore, they have no adverse effect against their rights. Argues that there are concurrent findings of fact by the two courts below and further the learned revisional court has dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner, therefore, in the civil matters there is no scope of interference by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. While relying upon "Syed Saadi Jafri Zainabi v. Land Acquisition Collector and Assistant Commissioner" (PLD 1992 Supreme Court 472) further argues that in the Sale Deed khasra numbers and specification of property has been mentioned without the permission of the court, this specification was even not the part of the judgment and decree, therefore, the application moved by the respondent-applicant was absolutely in accordance with law as the registration of sale deed is outcome of order of the court and said order is to be corrected under the powers available with the court under sections 152 and 153 of the C.P.C. Further that for correction of the order limitation is not a bar. Moreover while relying upon "Muhammad Yousaf v. Manzoor Ahmad and another" (PLD 2006 Lahore 738) argues that writ petition is not competent against the revisional court's order and also while referring "Mst. Sakko and others v. Mst. Sharifan" (2011 YLR 2815) states that application was competently filed and rightly accepted. While relying upon "Avari Hotels Limited through Chairman and Chief Executive v. Investment Corporation of Pakistan through Managing Director/Principal Officer and 6 others" (2002 CLC 1889) and "Muhammad Anwar and 8 others versus Muhammad Ashraf" (PLD 2001 SC 209) argues that limitation was not a hurdle in the case in hand, therefore, the view taken by the two courts below is in accordance with law. Prays for dismissal of the instant writ petition.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the record as well as case law.

6. Admittedly with regard to four shops owned by respondent No.3, his brother and three sisters a suit for specific performance was filed by the writ petitioner and on the basis of compromise the suit was decreed to the extent of respondent No. 3, his brother Frances Hayat was directed to return the money received by him whereas to the extent of defendants Nos. 3, 4 and 5 the suit was dismissed. Admittedly in the agreement or in the plaint no khasra number of suit land as well as specification decreed in favour of plaintiff-petitioner was mentioned. Actually the agreement was for four shops, admittedly, jointly owned by all the defendants and a decree for specific performance of part of the suit property was passed against one of the defendants without specification of the boundaries of the shop decreed as well as mentioning the area of the said shop, therefore, the application moved by respondent No.3/judgment-debtor under sections 152 and 153 of the C.P.C. was competent to correct the error in the sale deed which was registered under the order passed by the learned executing court without scrutinizing the said document ensuring that it is in accordance with the judgment passed by the learned trial court while decreeing the suit, therefore, in the light of the judgment of the august Supreme Court of Pakistan limitation cannot be a hurdle in the way of dispensation of justice when a wrong has been done by the Court, therefore, the view taken by both the courts below is in accordance with law. I am clear in my mind that while invoking jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 petitioner was bound to show some jurisdictional defect committed by the courts below but no such defect has been pointed out in the orders passed by the learned courts below. In this eventuality, against an order of the revisional court in civil matters the jurisdiction conferred upon this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 can be exercised rarely in exceptional circumstances when the petitioner is able to show some jurisdictional defect committed by the courts below while passing the impugned order but no such defect has been highlighted. In this view of the matter, I see no force in the instant writ petition, therefore, same stands dismissed. ZC/M-197/L Petitioner dismissed.