MUHAMMAD MUZAFFAR vs MAQSOOD-UL-HASSAN
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a judgment passed by the Lahore High Court upholding the dismissal of an execution application. The petitioner had instituted a suit for specific performance, which the trial court dismissed for want of cause of action without passing a decree or preparing a decree-sheet, despite an alleged admission by the respondent. After about five years, the petitioner filed an execution application, which the executing court initially allowed, leading to the registration of a conveyance deed. However, the appellate court and subsequently the High Court dismissed the proceedings, holding that an execution application is incompetent where the underlying suit was dismissed and no decree was passed. The Supreme Court considered the core legal question of whether an execution application is maintainable in the absence of a decree-sheet and a decree. The Court held that since the suit was dismissed and no decree-sheet was prepared, no executable decree existed, rendering the execution application entirely incompetent. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision and dismissed the petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, laying down the principle that execution proceedings cannot be maintained without a validly passed decree and decree-sheet.
- Can an execution application be maintained when the underlying suit was dismissed and no decree-sheet was prepared?
- Whether a compromise claimed between parties can be executed in the absence of a formal decree?
- Does the dismissal of a suit for want of cause of action create an executable right?
- Article 185(3), Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, ACTG. C.J.--- This petition for leave to appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 30-9-2004 passed by Lahore High Court.
2. Precisely stating the facts of the case are that petitioner instituted a suit for specific performance allegedly against the respondent and produced him on the day of presentation of the plaint before the Court who admitted his claim, as such the learned trial Court for want of cause of action dismissed the suit on 1st April, 1996. Later on after about 5 years an execution application was submitted on or about 23rd May, 2001. Learned Executing Court vide order dated 6th June, 2001 directed the Reader of the Court to register a conveyance in favor of the petitioner. A draft sale- deed was prepared the same day and was also registered on that very day. Subsequently, when matter came up for hearing in appeal on the file of Additional District Judge, Bahawalnagar he accepted the appeal on 4th June, 2002, as a consequence whereof execution application was dismissed. It is important to note that learned Appellate Court on having taken into consideration all the attending circumstances of the case opined that as the suit filed by the petitioner was dismissed and no decree was passed, therefore, the execution application was incompetent.
Against the order of Additional District Judge a revision was filed before the High Court which has been dismissed.
3. Learned counsel stated that as a compromise has been effected between the parties, therefore, the judgment was executable. We enquired from the learned counsel as to whether any decree- sheet was prepared his. Answer was in negative. It is important to note that when the suit was dismissed for want of cause of action and the trial Court prepared no decree-sheet, thus, there was no question of filing execution application nor such an order can be executed.
' For the foregoing reasons we are of the opinion that the learned High Court has rightly dismissed the revision and no interference is called for by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. As such the petition is dismissed and .
Cited by 2 cases
- HABIB ULLAH Versus NOOR-UL-HUDA 2026 CLC 98
- CRESCENT STAR INSURANCE Versus AL-REHMAN TRADERS 2015 CLD 786