EJAZ AHMED vs Rai MUHAMMAD RIAZ through L.Rs and others
This appeal by leave of the Court arises from a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell, which was decreed in favor of the appellant, followed by the execution of a sale deed and delivery of possession. Subsequently, respondent No. 1 filed an objection petition claiming a prior agreement to sell and fraudulent dispossession, which the executing court dismissed. The High Court, however, set aside the dismissal and remanded the matter. The core legal question concerns the maintainability of the objection petition and the applicability of Order XXI, Rule 95 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and Article 10A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Supreme Court held that the remedy under Order XXI, Rule 95 was not available to respondent No. 1 and that Article 10A had no relevance, especially since respondent No. 1 had already filed an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 challenging the original decree. The appeal was allowed, the High Court judgment was set aside, and it was ordered that the pending Section 12(2) application be decided independently on its merits.
- Whether an objection petition is maintainable when an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 challenging the same decree is already pending?
- Does Article 10A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 regulate the determination of objection proceedings under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Was the remedy under Order XXI Rule 95 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 available to a third party claiming through a separate agreement to sell in the circumstances of the case?
- Article 10A, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
- Order XXI Rule 95, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Order XXI Rule 95 to 103, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Section 12(2), Code of Civil Procedure 1908
' MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.---Respondents have not put in appearance, therefore, proceeded ex parte.
This appeal with the leave of the Court entails brief facts, in that, that the appellant filed a suit for specific performance against respondents Nos. 2 and 3 seeking enforcement of his alleged agreement to sell dated 06.04.2004 in respect of suit property (described in the plaint/which is a petrol pump). The suit was decreed in favour of the appellant on 03.06.2010 and in execution process the sale deed in favour of appellant has been executed on 11.11.2010 and according to the learned counsel for the appellant the possession was also delivered to his client on 07.02.2011. On 09.02.2011, respondent No, 1 filed an objection petition claiming that respondents Nos. 2 and 3 had already executed an agreement to sell in his favour on 23.09.2004 and pursuant to the said agreement he was also put in possession of the property and has been fraudulently dispossessed from the property in question without being made a party in the suit filed by the appellant. This objection petition has been dismissed by the learned Executing Court vide order dated 29.06.2011.
However, in appeal (F.A.O.) the learned High Court has set aside the said order and has remanded the matter to the Executing Court to frame issues and also to decide the objection petition on the basis of evidence. In this regard quite an emphasis has been made upon Article 10A of the Constitution and also the provisions of Order XXI, Rule 95, C.P.C.
2. Having learned counsel for the appellant, we find that the remedy of Order XXI, Rule 95, C.P.C., in the facts and circumstances of the case, was not available to respondent No, 1 and such application was not maintainable, whereas Article 10A of the Constitution has no relevance to the question as to how the objection was to be determined which is to be regulated on the basis of Order XXI, Rules 95 to 103, C.P.C. We have also been apprised in this case that respondent No, 1 has filed an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Challenging the decree dated 03.06.2010 in favour of the appellant. Obviously, when such application is already pending, the objection petition in any case was not maintainable, therefore, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned judgment with a clear observation that the application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Filed by respondent No, 1 challenging the decree dated 03.06.2010 in favour of the appellant shall be decided independently on its own merits.