P L D 1992 Peshawar 84 (PLP)

The petitioners through this revision petition have impugned the order dated 22‑3‑1988 of the learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Abbottabad whereby the application of judgment‑debtor Amirullah for staying the execution proceedings till the decision of a declaratory suit filed by him alongwith the others was rejected and thereafter in appeal before the Additional District Judge, Abbottabad, the same was maintained vide his order dated 20‑5‑1991.

2. Mohammad Ayub and others (landlords) filed a Suit No.60/1 of 1984 under section 9 of Specific Relief Act against Mohammad Hassan and Amirulah for possession of land measuring 34 Kanals 18 Marias which was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs by the Civil Judge Ist Class, Abbottabad on 6-3‑1986. The defendants Mohammad Hassan etc. filed a revision in the Court of District Judge, Abbottabad, which was dismissed vide his order dated 17‑5‑1987. The decree‑holders then brought the execution proceedings against the judgment‑debtors wherein an application was filed by the judgment‑debtors that they have filed a Suit No.121/1 of 1987 for declaration that successors in interest and legal heirs of Abdullah and Khairullah are tenants‑at‑will and that the Revenue Record be corrected accordingly and the% should not be dispossessed from the suit land. Alongwith the plaint an application for issuance of stay order was also filed, whereupon Civil Judge, Abbottabad, vide his order dated 8‑6‑1987 ordered that status quo be maintained till the next order. The execution Court as stated above dismissed the application for staying the proceedings and thereafter their appeal also failed, hence this revision. 2‑A. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since a suit by all the legal heirs of Abdullah and Khairullah had been filed in the Court of Civil Judge, Abbottabad which is pending adjudication and on the application for issuance of stay order, the learned Civil Judge has ordered the maintenance of status quo till further orders, therefore the executing Court in view of the aforesaid order cannot proceed and execute the decree passed in the former Suit No.60/1 of 1984. He submitted that after the death of the predecessor‑in -interest of the petitioners the tenancy has devolved upon all the legal heirs who have filed a suit and till its decision, status quo has to be maintained. He relied on AIR 1930 Lahore 515.

3. The learned counsel for the respondents herein contended that for the correction of entries in the Revenue Record, the petitioners who, claim to be the tenants‑at‑will should have approached the Revenue Court for correction of the alleged entries as in such matters Civil Courts have no jurisdiction and as such the suit is incompetent. The learned counsel contended that in view of the status quo order the executing Court is not debarred to execute the decree passed in favour of the decree‑holders. He submitted that the application of the petitioners was misconceived and on misrepresentation of facts, the order of status quo was obtained unilaterally. True facts were not brought to the notice of the learned Court that execution proceedings are pending in the Court of Civil Judge pertaining to the decree which was confirmed by the District Judge. Had the actual facts been brought to the notice of the Civil Judge that the execution proceedings of a decree is pending then in that event the Civil Judge could only issue a letter of request. He further contended that status quo order was issued in the absence of the respondents and is still ad interim and no date has been fixed for its confirmation or otherwise. He further contended that in revision petition this Court is only to see the legality and propriety of the order and cannot go into the factual aspect of the case. Relies on PLD 1970 SC 139, PLD 1981. Lahore 340, PLD 1957 Lahore 1054 and PLD 1968 Baghdad‑ul‑Jadeed 7.

4. I have given due consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case.

5. In the former suit which was contested by Mohammad Hassan and Amirullah judgment‑debtors they did not object that besides them there were other legal heirs who have now come forward‑and have brought a suit for declaration alongwith them. The former suit was decreed under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act and that decree was maintained by the Revisional Court as well. After the execution proceedings, the suit for declaration was brought A by the legal heirs of Khairullah and Abdullah who are allegedly tenants‑at‑will of the decree‑holders. The tenancy of the tenants‑4t‑will is terminable at the will of the landlord. Their possession if at all, is like licensees, and they have no substantial right in the property to defend their alleged possession against the landlords. The subsequent suit by judgment‑debtors alongwith the others appear to be collusive and a device to prolong the litigation so as to create hurdles and to avail the land as long as possible. Since a decree has been passed in favour of the decree‑holders by the competent Court which has been maintained by the revisional court, is to be executed in accordance with law. The status quo order appears to have been obtained on concealing the true facts from the Court concerned. If the Court had been apprised that execution proceedings are pending then in that event the learned Court could at the most issue a letters of request to the executing court. The decree‑holders cannot be denied the fruits of the decree which was passed after hot contest.

5. The learned Courts below have properly exercised the jurisdiction and the impugned orders are neither arbitrary nor perverse, hence under limited revisional jurisdiction no exception can be taken thereto. The revision petition is without any substance and is dismissed accordingly with costs. AA./1344/P Revision dismissed.