1985 PLP 2035 (SCMR)

ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.‑‑This petition is a sorrow tale of prolonged litigation which started with an application filed by Muhammad Ismail, predecessor-in‑interest of respondents against one Bachal Bibi on 12‑10‑1967. The Rent Controller, Hyderabad struck off the defence of Bachal Bibi by the order, dated 23‑9‑1970 and directed her eviction from the demised premises. Bachal Bibi's appeal against this order was dismissed on 29‑5‑1971, and subsequently Muhammad Is mail filed Execution Application No. 49 of 1979 on 21‑9‑1971 and in these proceedings one Abdul Hakim Shah filed objections claiming possession of the demised premises in his own right. The objections were rejected on 14‑4‑1972 and appeal against this order by Abdul Hakim Shah was dismissed on 25‑7‑1974. He then filed Civil Suit No. 249 of 1974 on 24‑8‑1974 against Muhammad Ismail for a declaration that he was in possession of the demised premises in his own right. During the pendency of the suit interim injunction was issued by the trial Court on 24‑8‑1974 restraining Muhammad Ismail from evicting Abdul Hakim Shah, but on appeal by Muhammad Ismail, the interim injunction was vacated on 30‑10‑1976. The civil Suit was also dismissed thereafter on 15‑1‑1977. In the meanwhile, during these proceedings, Execution Application No. 49 of 1971 filed by Muhammad Ismail was dismissed for default on 19‑9‑1975. Muhammad Ismail then filed Execution Application No. 109 of 1978 in December, 1978 which was later on sought to be executed against petitioner herein, as the legal representatives of Bachal Bibi, who died during the proceedings. Petitioner, on the other hand, tiled Civil Suit No. 80 of 1979 seeking relief against the execution of the ejectment order passed against Bachal Bibi. He did not succeed in getting any interim relief during the pendency of the suit upto the level of the High Court. He then resisted Execution Application No. 109 of 1978 on the ground that it was barred by time. This plea was rejected by the executing Court, and petitioner's appeal against this order was dismissed by the Sind High Court. Another plea raised by him that the executing Court was not competent to execute the order of ejectment, dated 12‑10‑1967 was also rejected by the High Court. It is, in these circumstances, that petitioner now seeks leave to appeal from the judgment of the High Court. After having gone through the record of the case we entirely agree with the observations made by the High Court that:‑ "this is a classic instance of a case in which a judgment‑debtor has successfully avoided execution of a valid order for more than a decade and has deprived the decree‑holder of the fruits of his decree which he had obtained after a protracted litigation starting from 1967. " Even if there be any point of law in petitioner's favour, we would on above view taken by us consider this case as eminently fit for refusing to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court in petitioner's favour. The petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine. M.I Petition dismissed.