2020 PLP 226 (YLR)

ALI BAIG, J.

Through the instant Civil 1st Appeal the appellants have impugned the judgment/ order dated 10-07-2018 passed by the learned Referee Judge/Executing Court Astore in Execution Petition No. 02/2017 whereby the learned Executing Court has attached the officials vehicles of respondent No.2/Collector Astore and respondent No.6 Executive Engineer B&R Gilgit-Baltistan PWD Astore.

2. The facts essential for the disposal of the instant revision petition are that the respondents/decree-holders had filed a reference petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 in the Referee Court/District Court Astore for enhancement of compensation amount of the land of the respondents/decree-holders which was acquired by the present appellants/Judgment debtors for construction of Civil Court and residential House of Civil Judge Tehsil Shounter Astore. The present appellants/judgment-debtors contested that the aforesaid reference petition by way of filing their replication in Referee Court/District Court Astore.

3. In the light of pleadings of parties the learned Referee Court had framed necessary issues.

4. After completion/conclusion of Trial, the learned Referee Judge/District Judge Astore vide judgment/decree dated 04-12-2013 had decreed the reference petition filed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 in favour of the present respondents/decree-holders. The aforesaid judgment/decree passed by the learned Referee Judge Astore was challenged before this Court through Civil 1st Appeal and a Division Bench of this Court after hearing arguments on behalf of both the parties had dismissed Civil 1st Appeal of present appellants/judgments-debtors by maintaining the judgment/ decree passed by the learned Referee Court Astore vide judgment dated 18-5-2015. The aforesaid judgment of a Division Bench of this Court had also been impugned before the Hon'ble Supreme Appellate Court CPLA No. 83/2015. The Hon'ble Apex Court Gilgit-Baltistan after hearing arguments on behalf of both the parties has also dismissed leave to appeal of the present petitioners/Judgment-debtors. Thus the judgment/decree passed by the learned trial Court/Referee Judge Astore has attained finality. Accordingly the present respondents/decree holders had filed an execution bearing Execution Petition No. 02/204 before the learned Referee Judge/Executing Court on 21-6-2017. From 21-6-2017 to 06-7-2018 several opportunities were afforded to the judgment-debtors / appellants to pay decretal amount to the decree holders/ respondents by the learned Executing Court Astore but the appellants/judgment-debtors have miserably failed to comply with the order of Executing Court. Lastly on 10-07-2018 the learned Executing Court has ordered to attach the official vehicles of the present appellants Nos. 2 and 6, hence this appeal.

5. The learned Assistant Advocate General appearing on behalf of the appellants/judgment-debtors contended that the impugned order passed by the learned Executing Court Astore is contrary to law and facts on the record of the case as such the impugned judgment/order passed by the executing Court is not maintainable and liable to be set aside. The learned Additional Advocate General further argued that under the provisions of Section 82 C.P.C. the Executing Court was bound to make a report to the provincial Government if decree is not satisfied by the Government functionaries but the learned Executing Court has failed to report the Provincial Government regarding execution/ implementation of decree passed by it in favour of the present respondents/decree-holders.

6. On the other hand the learned Counsel for the respondents/decree-holders supported the impugned order/ judgment passed by the learned Executing Court by contending that the despite issuance of repeated directions and affording of many opportunities to the appellants/judgment-debtors by the Executing Court, they have failed the satisfy/Execute the decree passed by the Executing Court, therefore, the learned Executing Court has rightly issued the directions to the S.P. Astore to attach the official vehicles of appellants/judgment-debtors.

7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.

8. From perusal of record it transpires that after attaining of finality of judgment/decree passed by the learned Referee Judge/Executing Court the present respondents/decree-holders had filed an execution petition before the learned Executing Court Astore on 21.6.2017. Accordingly notice was issued to the judgment-debtors/appellants on 21.6.2017. Departmental representative of respondents/judgment-debtors, District Attorney Astore and Legal Advisor of the appellants appeared before the Executing Court on 05-7-2017 and execution petition was adjourned to 10-7-2017 for payment of decretal amount. On 10-7-2017 the District Attorney and Legal Advisor PWD Astore appeared before the executing Court and sought adjournment so that they could manage the decretal amount for payment to the decree-holders. Therefore, the appellants/judgment-debtors have been seeking several adjournments on the one pretext or the other and the learned Executing Court has liberally granted as many as 18 adjournments to the appellants but the appellants have miserably failed to satisfy the decree passed by the learned Executing/trial Court.

9. The learned Additional Advocate General mainly contended that the learned Executing Court Astore has not reported the case for the orders of the provincial Government Gilgit-Baltistan as required under Section 82, C.P.C. In this regard it clarified that neither the Government pleader/D.A nor Legal Advisor PWD Astore has requested the Executing Court to report the matter for the order of the Provincial Government. Even the judgment-debtors/appellants have not taken any such plea in this Court before advancing their arguments. The judgment-debtors/appellants have paid some decretal amount to the decree-holder/ respondents as evident from the order-sheets of Executing Court without raising any such plea hence, the appellants/ judgment debtors are estopped by their conduct to raise this objection/contention at appellate stage. Hence I am of the opinion that Section 82 was therefore, no bar to the executing Court. Reference in this connection is made to the reported judgment of Sindh High Court reported in 2000 CLC 595, wherein it has been held that Provisions of Section 82, C.P.C. is to enable the Government to meet and face the demands of a decree-holder and not to frustrate the same.

10. The upshot of the foregoing discussion is that, I am of the view that the appellants/judgment debtors have not been unable pointed out any material irregularity and illegality in the impugned judgment/order passed by the learned Executing Court. This appeal must therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. Consequently the impugned judgment/ order dated 10-7-2018 passed by the learned Executing Court/District Court Astore is maintained. There shall be no order as to costs. File. SA/13/GB Appeal dismissed.