2024 PLP 2110 (CLC)

Laws Cited

Representation

• ----S.12---Enforcement of decree---Objection, raising of---False and frivolous litigation---Scope and effect---Wife filed a suit for recovery of dower (house) which was decreed in her favour and she moved for its execution ---Objection was raised , on issuing of attachment notice, by petitioner (other than husband/judgment-debtor) claiming ownership of house-in-question, which objection petition was dismissed---Objection petitioner challenged order passed by the Executing /Family Court , however, the impugned findings were maintained by the Appellate Court---Stance/objection of the petitioner was that the house-in-question was originally in the ownership of respondent (husband / defendant / judgment-debtor), which was purchased from him by the petitioner in the year 2006, however, the mutation attested was on 26.09.2013, whereas the attachment notice was issued after about two months of said mutation (on 19.11.2013), therefore, the said notice was illegal---Validity---Record showed that the marriage between respondents was solemnized on 14.04.2007---During the execution proceedings, it transpired that the house-in-question given to respondent / wife as dower by respondent/husband had no existence at all---Therefore, the Executing Court issued the order of attachment of the house-in-question as an alternative---But, in order to deprive respondent (wife / decree-holder) of the fruits of the decree passed in her favour, the petitioner in collusion with respondent / husband claimed the same in his ownership, which clearly showed that a deliberate attempt had been made by the petitioner and respondent / husband to deprive the respondent / wife from the benefits of the decree granted in her favour---Moreso, it was not appealable to a prudent mind that the house-in-question was purchased by the petitioner in the year 2005 but, despite that he did not transfer the same till the year 2013, which was indeed beyond comprehension---Besides, the alleged stance also could not be proved by the petitioner through cogent, reliable and confidence-inspiring evidence---Matter between the parties was finally decided by the High Court through its judgment date 11.09.2013, whereas the alleged mutation was shown attested in favour of the petitioner on 26.09.2013 after the decision of the Supreme Court, which certainly spoke volumes qua the conduct of the petitioner and respondent / husband---Another pronounced aspect of the case was that right from the date of institution of the suit of the respondent (wife / plaintiff) i.e. 19.01.2011 till the final decision of the case by the High Court on 11.09.2013, the address of the respondent (husband) had been mentioned as that of the house-in-question---So much so that respondent / husband on the affidavit in his constitutional petition had mentioned the same address, which further belied the stance of the petitioner regarding the purchase of the house-in-question in the year 2006---It was obvious from the record that when respondent/husband failed in all his efforts to deprive respondent/wife of her dower, then, he disappeared himself and the petitioner who was his brother-in-law came forward and filed instant frivolous objection petition to create further hurdles for respondent / wife in getting benefits of the decree passed in her favour way back in the year 2011---It is certainly high time to deal with false and frivolous litigation with an iron hand as on one hand it is dragging innocent persons into the courts and on another hand, it is wasting precious time of the Courts---Indeed, Courts of law are guardians of the rights and interests of the common man and are under the bounden duty and obligation to protect the same at any cost---Revision petition, filed by objection petitioner, was dismissed with costs to be paid to respondent (decree-holder).
• Naveed Maqsood Sethi for Petitioner.
• Misbah Ullah for Respondent.
• 5. Record shows that the marriage between respondents Nos.1 and 2 was solemnized on 14.04.2007, however, upon cracks in their relationship, respondent No.1 filed a suit for recovery of dower which was decreed in her favour. During the execution proceedings, it transpired that the property given to respondent No.1 as dower by respondent No.2 was having no existence at all. Therefore, the learned executing court issued the order of attachment of the house in question as an alternative. However, in order to deprive respondent No.1 of the fruits of the decree passed in her favour, the petitioner in collusion with respondent No.2 claimed the same his ownership, which clearly shows that a deliberate attempt has been made by the petitioner and respondent No.2 to deprive the respondent No.1 from the benefits of the decree granted in her favour. Moreso, it is not appealable to a prudent mind that the house in question was purchased by the petitioner in the year 2006 but, despite that, he did not transfer the same till the year 2013, which is indeed behind comprehension. Besides, the alleged stance also could not be proved by the petitioner through cogent, reliable, and; confidence-inspiring evidence. Moreso, it is worth mentioning that the matter between the parties was finally decided by the august Apex Court through its judgment date 11.09.2013, whereas the alleged mutation was shown attested in favour of the petitioner on 26.09.2013 after the decision of the august apex Court, which certainly speaks volumes qua the conduct of the petitioner and; respondent No.2. Another pronounced aspect of the case is that right from the date of institution of the suit of the respondent No.1 i.e. 19.01.2011 till the final decision of the case by the august apex Court on 11.09.2013, the address of the respondent No.2 had been mentioned that of the house in question. So much so that respondent No.2 on affidavit in his W.P.No.3307/2011 titled Zubair Ahmad v. Mst. Sumera and others had mentioned the same address, which further belies the stance of the petitioner regarding the purchase of the house in question in the year 2006. It is obvious from the record that when respondent No.2 failed in all his efforts to deprive respondent No.1 of her dower, then, he disappeared himself, and; the present petitioner who is the brother-in-law of respondent No.2 came forward and filed instant frivolous objection petition to create further hurdles for respondent No.1 in getting benefits of the decree passed in her favour way back in the year 2011. It is certainly high time to deal with false and frivolous litigation with an iron hand as on one hand it is dragging innocent persons into the courts and; on another hand, it is wasting precious time of the courts. Indeed, courts of law are guardians of the rights and; interests of the common man and are under the bounden duty and; obligation to protect the same at any costs.

Headnotes / Summary

Judgment & Decree