1995SCMR726 (PLP)

SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J‑‑‑Leave is sought to file appeal against order dated 14‑7‑1992 of Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby learned Judge in Chamber has dismissed Civil Revision No. 1168 of 1991 filed by the petitioners herein.

2. Second respondent namely Manzoor Ahmed Khan was transferred disputed property vide order dated 20‑10‑1960 by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, but could not pay entire price from his own compensation book, hence joined Yasin Khan vide Association Deed dated 30‑5‑1961 as equal partners. In 1987, petitioners, who are heirs of late Muhammad Yasin Khan, learnt that first respondent namely Khalil Ahmed Ansari had obtained decree from Civil Court for possession against second respondent Manzoor Ahmed Khan in respect of disputed property and claimed that they were not joined in the suit proceedings, hence decree could not be executed against them.

3. Petitioners joined execution proceedings and filed application under Order 21, rules 97 and 99 and section 103, C.P.C praying that inquiry be held since they were in physical possession of the suit property by virtue of their own legal rights, hence they may not be dispossessed and execution application may be dismissed. Prayer was also made for stay of execution proceedings. Vide order dated 2‑12‑1990, the execution Court refused interim stay and dismissed original application of petitioners under Order 7, rule 11, C.P.C. Petitioners filed appeal and revision but without success.

4. Before us main contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that execution Court had dismissed their objections summarily without allowing them opportunity to substantiate those objections. Contention is not tenable as it appears from the perusal of order of the High Court and orders passed by the execution Court and first appellate Court. Order passed by the execution Court on 2‑12‑1990 indicates that it was passed after hearing advocates of both parties and perusing the documents placed on the record. Relevant paragraph from that order is reproduced which is as under:‑‑ "I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length, perused the documents placed on record. It is evident from the Association Deed that the predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioners came in the property under the, licence of the judgment‑debtor. and prior to it the predecessor‑in‑interest had no vested right in the property, that the predecessor‑in‑interest could only be entitled to what Manzoor Ahmed Khan, the judgment‑debtor had to get. Record shows that the judgment‑debtor's application for the transfer of the entire property was rejected and he alongwith the associates was only transferred ' portion constructed."

5. It appears that a joint transfer order No. 19235 dated 30‑9‑1984 was issued for half share of Muhammad Yasin Khan and half share of Manzoor Ahmed Khan in House No. 106/D, Model Town, with total area of 3 Kanals 30 (sic) Marlas and 89 square feet. There is excess area of 2 Kanals 6 Marlas and 136 square feet for transfer of which respondent No.2 Manzoor Ahmed Khan tried his best but could not succeed and in respect of this are respondent No.1 Khaleeq Ahmed Ansari has obtained decree from the Civil Court. There is no dispute about the fact that Muhammad Yasin Khan was son‑in‑law of Manzoor Ahmed Khan and both relatives resided together in the disputed house, hence petitioners could be expected to be in know of litigation between two respondents before us which was going on and they could have joined suit proceedings as intervenors. It is stated that petitioners are not in possession of the area which is claimed by decree‑holder.

6. For facts and reasons stated above, we are unable to find any flaw or legal infirmity in the impugned order to which no exception can, be taken. Leave is refused and this petition, which has no merits, is dismissed. AA./S‑812/S Leave refused.