Rana MUHAMMAD SHAFI vs JAVED IQBAL SIDDIQUI and others
This petition for leave to appeal was filed against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's writ petition challenging an order passed by the Banking Court No. 1, Gujranwala. The core legal question concerned whether the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction could be invoked to challenge execution proceedings arising from a money decree passed in favor of the Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan (A.D.B.P.). The petitioner, having an outstanding balance on a decree, sought to avoid execution by filing successive writ petitions, alleging payments that were not accounted for. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's approach was misconceived and amounted to frivolous litigation. The Court affirmed the dismissal of the writ petition, emphasizing that the proper forum for raising objections regarding the satisfaction of a decree is the executing court, not the High Court through constitutional jurisdiction. The principle laid down is that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be utilized as a substitute for statutory remedies available before an executing court, particularly when the intent is to harass the decree-holder and delay the execution of a lawful money decree.
- Can constitutional jurisdiction be invoked to challenge execution proceedings of a money decree?
- Is the executing court the appropriate forum for raising objections regarding the satisfaction of a decree?
- Does the filing of successive, misconceived writ petitions constitute frivolous litigation?
ORDER
' RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.---Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court order, dated 22-7-2002 Court dismissing his Writ Petition No,4787 of 2002 directed assailing an order of the Banking Court No,1, Gujranwala.
2. There is a money decree passed in a suit by A.D.B.P. For the recovery of Rs,2,85,157 against the petitioner. He has statedly paid a sum of Rs,1,97,678 leaving a balance of Rs,87,539. Instead of facing execution proceedings or satisfying the decree, he has been invoking Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court on the pretext or the other. Pursuant to the direction given in the earlier petition he approached the Banking Court but his application was dismissed. He filed second writ petition before the High Court which has been dismissed with the observation that the petitioner is trying to involve the respondent-Bank and its functionaries into frivolous litigation.
3. We are least impressed with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he had paid a sum of Rs,50,000 to the Bank or that it has not been accounted for. Proper course for the petitioner is to satisfy the decree or to submit relevant objection before the executing Court instead of harassing the other party. By filing successive writ petitions which are completely misconceived.
' The petition is accordingly dismissed and leave refused. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.