2025 PLP 1540 (MLD)

Sultan Tanvir Ahmad, J.

Through this civil revision, filed under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the 'Code'), the revision-petitioner has challenged order dated 29.06.2024 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Lahore as well as order dated 14.06.2024 passed by learned Civil Judge Ist Class, Lahore.

2. Ch. Ishtiaq Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the revision-petitioner, has submitted that the learned two Courts below have ignored that after a decree is passed all questions arising between the parties relating to execution as well as satisfaction of decree, are required to be determined by the learned Executing Court. He submitted that without giving any valid reason, the objection petition dated 07.12.2023 (the 'objection petition') has been dismissed by the learned Executing Court, which is also dismissed by the learned Appellate Court without passing any reasoned order. He contended that issuance of warrant of possession is against the facts and the record. He has added that the learned Executing Court has ignored orders dated 30.07.2021 and 05.11.2022 by way of which the learned Civil Court has granted interim relief in favour of the revision-petitioner; that no relief is granted to respondent No. 1 through the decree in question with respect to the possession. Learned counsel seeks setting aside of orders dated 29.06.2024 and 14.06.2024, passed by the learned two Courts below.

3. Conversely, Barrister Qadir Bakhsh, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has relied upon case titled "Mst. Naseem Sajjad v. Additional District Judge and 4 others" (2021 CLC 1319) and submitted that the revision-petitioner is wrongly interpreting the relevant law, as in the suit for specific performance of contract the relief of delivery of possession is incidental to the main relief and the learned Executing Court can grant the same even if decree-holder has not prayed for the same. Learned counsel has also relied upon the case titled "Atal Behary Acharya v. Barada Prasad Banerji" (A.I.R. 1931 Patna 179). Learned counsel has raised serious objection as to the conduct of the revision-petitioner and stated that he in collusion with respondent No. 2 has initiated multiple litigation and filed frivolous suits to defeat the interest of justice.

4. Heard.

5. Record reflects that on 19.06.2017 respondent No. 1 filed suit titled 'Faisal Khan v. Javed Akhtar Khawaja and another' (the 'first suit') for specific performance of agreement dated 21.03.2017 executed by respondent No. 2 with respect to the property in question (the 'suit property'). The learned trial Court, after adjudicating the matter, passed judgment and decree dated 03.10.2023 (the 'decree') in favour of respondent No.

1. Record also reflects that respondent No. 2 filed suit dated 22.06.2017 for cancellation of agreement to sell titled 'Jawaid Akhtar Khawaja v. Faisal Khan and 2 others' (the 'second suit') which was later dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 17.10.2022. Thereafter, the revision-petitioner filed suit dated 30.07.2021 titled 'Shabbir Ahmad v. Javed Akhtar Khawaja and 2 others' (the 'third suit'), claiming that respondent No. 2 during pendency of the first suit has executed agreement dated 19.12.2019 with respect to the suit property and seeked to enforce this agreement. The revision-petitioner remained successful in obtaining interim relief against respondent No.

2. The third suit is somehow still pending at the initial stages and even till to date final decision on the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1, 2 of the Code is not passed. It also came to the surface that the revision-petitioner also filed suit dated 05.11.2022 for declaration, cancellation, mandatory and permanent injunction (the 'fourth suit').

6. The revision-petitioner instituted an application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code (the 'application') 25.05.2022. The revision-petitioner raised all the concerns in the application on the basis of which the objection petition has been instituted. The learned trial Court through a detailed order dismissed the application while observing that the agreement to sell relied by the revision-petitioner admittedly pertains to the period when the first suit was pending adjudication. The present revision-petitioner assailed order dated 28.02.2023 passed in the application before the learned District Court. Vide judgment dated 13.09.2023, the same was dismissed. It is observed by the learned District Court that the agreement relied by respondent No. 1 on the basis of which the decree is passed is prior in time and mere agreement in favour of the revision-petitioner that too during the pendency of suit, does not create any title, therefore, he is not necessary party. The revision-petitioner has failed to show from the record if this judgment has been disturbed by any higher forum.

7. After dismissal of the application almost on the same ground(s) the objection petition was filed by the revision-petitioner. The learned counsel relied upon interim relief granted to the revision-petitioner in the third suit. In this suit, admittedly respondent No. 1 is not a party. The application under Order XXXIX Rules 1, 2 of the Code is still pending and despite the fact that three years have passed even the fate of application of interim relief could not be decided. When confronted if the decree-holder is a party in the third suit, learned counsel for the revision-petitioner has made reference to the second suit and an application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code filed in the third suit. I am afraid that the application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code in the third suit is still pending and the second suit has already been dismissed, therefore, no benefit of the same can be given to the revision-petitioner.

8. Now coming to the argument of learned counsel for the revision-petitioner that all the questions relating to the execution or for the satisfaction of decree were required to be resolved by the learned Executing Court. Section 47(1) of the Code provides that all questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed, or their representatives' and relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree, shall be determined by the Court executing the decree and not by a separate suit. However, in the present case at the one side the revision-petitioner is adamant that his questions are required to be determined by the learned Executing Court and on the other hand he has filed a separate suit (i.e. the third suit) and while relying upon this suit he is seeking to stop the execution. Even otherwise, it is settled principle of law that the Executing Court cannot go beyond the decree. The Executing Court while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 47 of the Code can question the executability of a decree only when it is satisfied that decree is nullity in the eyes of law or it has been passed by the Court having no jurisdiction or the non-execution of decree would not infringe the legal rights of the decree-holder. Reference in this regard can be made to case titled "Habib Bank Limited v. Mst. Parveen Qasim Jan and others" (2014 SCMR 322).

9. Learned counsel for the revision-petitioner has failed to show violation of any provision of law at the time of conclusion of the first suit or such circumstances that non-execution of decree would not infringe the legal rights of decree-holder/respondent No. 1.

10. For what has been discussed above, I am of the considered view that there is no lawful justification available to exercise the revisional jurisdiction. Therefore, this revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. SA/S-17/L Revision dismissed.