2006 PLP 754 (YLR)

MUHAMMAD NAWAZ BHATTI, J.

Through this writ petition the petitioners have challenged the order dated 3-11-2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kot Addu whereby he dismissed the revision petition filed by petitioners against the order dated 17-9-2003 passed by learned Judge Family Court/Executing Court, Kot Addu.

2. Brief facts of the case are that respondents Nos.1 and 2 filed a suit for recovery of maintenance allowance against respondent No.3, which was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 7-4-2000 by the learned Family Court for a sum of Rs.85,

600. The respondents/decree holders filed execution proceedings on 25-1-2002 and submitted lard taliqa with the execution petition for attachment of Tractor No.MH 8948. The tractor was ordered to be attached and later on it was handed over to Superdar and surety was submitted from him to produce the same on Court orders.

3. The present petitioners filed objection petition with the contention that said tractor which was attached in execution proceedings had no concern with the judgment-debtor and the same was owned by petitioners through agreement dated 22-2-1998. Consequently learned Civil Judge, Kot Addu dismissed the same vide? order dated 17-9-2003. Petitioners preferred a revision which too was dismissed vide impugned order dated 3-11-2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kot Addu. Hence, this petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that said tractor/attached property is owned by them and the they have no concern with the execution proceedings; that the impugned orders are against the law and facts of the case and liable to be set aside; that tractor in question was jointly purchased through Agricultural Development Bank on loan and agricultural land was pledged by petitioners and respondent Nazir Ahmad judgment-debtor sold the said tractor in consideration of Rs.1,20,000 to Muhammad Bashir petitioner through agreement dated 22-2-1998.

5. It is pertinent to mention here that respondents Nos.1 to 3 have already been proceeded against ex parte by this Court vide orders dated 15-9-2005 and 4-10-2005.

6. I have heard ex parte arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and carefully perused the record. Perusal of record shows that petitioner Bashir Ahmad and respondent No.3 Nazeer Ahmad are joint owners of the disputed tractor. The tractor is mortgaged with ADBP Kot Addu and the same had been sold by respondent No.3 Nazeer Ahmad to Bashir Ahmad petitioner vide agreement dated 22-2-1998. Grievance of the petitioners is that they are strangers to the litigation in between respondents Nos.1, 2 and 3 because they have no concern whatsoever with the inter se proceedings and litigation and the tractor being exclusively owned by petitioners the executing Court could not lay hand on the property of petitioners. The petitioners admittedly having acquired rights of ownership and title in tractor in dispute before the order passed by executing Court regarding attachment of tractor and even before passing of decree in suit for recovery of maintenance allowance. The learned trial Court had not cared to investigate the claim of the petitioners as required by Order XXI, rules 58, 59 and 62, C.P.C. and by way of not applying judicial mind has haphazardly dismissed the objection petition filed by the petitioners.

7. For what has been discussed above instant writ petition is accepted, impugned orders passed by the learned Courts below are set aside and the case is remanded to the learned executing Court for adjudication afresh on merits in accordance with law, after hearing the parties. H.B.T./B-116/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Case remanded.