ABDUL MALIK Versus MUNIR AHMAD
ORDER
The facts leading to this Civil Revision against the order dated 2‑7‑1987 of the learned Executing Court and the order dated 16‑11‑1987 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Rahimyar Khan in appeal against that order, briefly, are that United Sugar Mills, Bakhshabad, respondent No.2 filed a suit for the recovery of money against Sh. Abdul Malik petitioner. The trial Court passed decree of Rs.1,13,050.41 with costs against the petitioner on 19‑3‑1983. Since no appeal/revision was filed against this decree, therefore, the same attained finality. On 22‑7‑1984 respondent No.2, the decree holder, filed Execution Petition for the recovery of the decretal amount. In spite of the notice, the petitioner judgment debter did not appear before the Court, on 6‑10‑1987. The learned Executing Court passed an order of the issuance of warrant of arrest against the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved thereby, he filed appeal which was dismissed on 19‑10‑1986. Thereafter, the Executing Court in pursuance of the order dated 6‑10‑1986, issued fresh warrants of arrest of the petitioner. The petitioner again filed appeal which was dismissed on 6‑5‑1987 by Additional District Judge, Rahimyar Khan. After the decision of the appeal, the learned Executing Court again issued warrants of arrest on 2‑7‑1987. The petitioner again filed appeal against this order which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rahimyar Khan on 16‑11‑1987, hence this revision.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that since the petitioner had filed an application on 21‑5‑1987 under section 47 C.P.C. for the withdrawal of the warrants of arrest on the ground that he being an agriculturist was immune from arrest in execution of money decree, therefore, the learned Executing Court, Sadiqabad should not have issued warrants of arrest on 2‑7‑1987 and that the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge in appeal against the order dated 2‑7‑1987 suffers from illegality and material irregularity.
3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel with care. I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with him. I find that the original order for the issuance of warrants of arrest was passed on 6‑10‑1986 and appeal against this order had also failed. As stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner before me, the petitioner had also filed revision against the aforesaid orders but the same was withdrawn. It is thus very much obvious that the original order of arrest dated 6‑10‑1986 holds field and the order dated 2‑7‑1987 was not an independent order of the arrest of the petitioner but the warrants were issued in pursuance to and on the basis of original order dated 6‑10‑1986. In the application under section 47, C.P.C. submitted by the petitioner for the withdrawal of l warrants of arrest, it has simply been stated in para‑3 of the application.
It may be noted with advantage that it has not been asserted in the application that the petitioner earned his livelihood mainly by agriculture. I am afraid that under section 5 of the West Pakistan Relief of Indebtedness Ordinance, 1960, the judgment‑debtor cannot claim immunity unless he 'earns his livelihood mainly by agriculture and that a person who does not earn his livelihood mainly by agriculture cannot claim any protection under the Ordinance although the may be an agriculturist. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has given sound and cogent reasons in support of his judgment dated 16‑11‑1987. I am also convinced that the petitioner has been using dilatory tactics and has not come to Court with clean hands and as such does not deserve any assistance by this Court. It may be noted that he undertook before the Appellate Court to pay Rs.50,000 towards the adjustment of the decree. On his request, the Court gave him time and asked him to deposit the amount by 9‑9‑1987. Instead of making payment, he challenged the order of the Court (which was passed C with his consent) in the High Court but failed. In his appeal against order dated 6‑10‑1986, the execution of the decree was suspended subject to the petitioner's furnishing bank guarantee for the decretal amount but he did not comply with the order. The learned counsel has not been able to point out any illegality or material irregularity in the impugned orders.
For what has been said above, there being no merit, the revision is dismissed in limine.
M . Y . H . / A‑297/ L Petition dismissed.