2003 PLP 1014 (SCMR)

KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.

This petition is directed against a judgment, dated 18-6-1999 of the Lahore High Court passed in F.A.O. No.70 of 1995 which judgment affirmed an order, dated 19-12-1994 passed by a learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Jaranwala in an objection petition filed in Execution Petition No. 17/10 of 1985.

2. A sister of the petitioner namely Mst. Ameer Begum had sold 81 Kanals and 2 Marlas of land through a registered sale-deed, dated 20-10-1979 which sale was pre-empted by respondents Nos. 1 to 5 through a suit filed on 22-10-1980. This suit was decreed and the appeal filed against the said judgment and decree was dismissed by the Lahore High Court on (sic).

3. A month thereafter i.e. on 12-3-1985 the decree-holders submitted an application for execution of the said decree passed in their favour and also prayed for delivery of possession of the suit-land.

4. This is where Mst. Bakhtawar petitioner enters the arena in by filing an application under section 12(2) of the C.P.C. for the setting aside of the above mentioned judgment and decree of the Lahore High Court. This application was dismissed on 28-4-1992 whereafter the petitioner filed an objection petition before the learned Executing Court which petition was also dismissed by the said learned Court which led her to F.A.O. No.187 of 1992 in the Lahore High Court which was allowed on 3-4-1993 and the matter was remanded back to the learned Executing Court for a fresh order after proper investigation in terms of Order 21 of rule 100 of the C.P.C. On the matter being remanded an amended objection petition was also filed by the petitioner which objection petition culminated in the above mentioned order of the learned Executing Court, dated 19-12-1994 which, as has been mentioned above, was maintained by the Lahore High Court through the impugned judgment.

5. While dismissing F.A.0. No.70 of 1995 the learned Single Judge in the Honourable High Court had considered, at length, the above mentioned objection petitions and the evidence led by the parties in the matter. It was found by the learned Judge in Chamber that the sale deed in question clearly narrated that possession of the land in question was delivered by the vendor to the vendees and that the pre-emptors/decree holders having stepped into the shoes of the vendees stood possessed of the land which had been delivered to the vendees. The Honourable High Court further found that according to the record produced in evidence the land in (sic) mortgage-amount payable to the mortgagees during the course of executing proceedings, process was issued and as per the report, dated 8-7-1992, the possession of the land in question had been delivered to the decree-holders. It was further noticed by the High Court that neither the petitioner nor her attorney had entered the witness-box in support of her case and that even otherwise she never claimed even through the objection petition filed by her that she was in possession of the suit-land and that she stood dispossessed of the same as a result of the execution proceedings. The High Court had also, besides other material, considered the effect of the statement made by Zulfiqar Haider who was a nephew of the petitioner, in reaching the conclusions that it did. Adverting to the entries in the Khasra Girdawaries, the learned Judge in the High Court had observed that the petitioner had not come forward to support the said entries and referring to Ahmed Khan's case (PLD 1974 SC 311), had mentioned, that no presumption of correctness was attached to the said entries.

6. We have once again examined the record available on our file in the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and find that no exception could be taken to the conclusions reached through the impugned judgment or the reasons offered therefor. We also confronted the learned counsel for the petitioner with the original objection petition and the contents of the amended objection petition and the learned counsel could not refer to any averment in the said petition alleging that the petitioner was in possession of the suit-land and had been dispossessed as a result of the execution proceedings in question. Needless to mention here that the possession of the objector A was sine qua non for invoking the provisions, inter alia, of rule 100 of Order 21 of the C. P. C. Having thus considered all aspects of the matter, we find no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. Leave refused. M.H./B-67/S Petition dismissed.