Mst. AMNA BIBI Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH through Secretary, Law and Justice Department, Karachi

ORDER

KHADIM HUSSAIN M. SHAIKH, J.--- This petition is directed against the order dated 23.9.2016, passed by the III-Senior Civil Judge/Rent Controller South, Karachi in Execution Application No.01/2013 re-Mst. Ghous Bibi v. Mst. Amina Bibi, whereby the application under section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, (Act No. V of 1908) (hereinafter will be referred to as the Code), filed by the petitioner, was dismissed.

2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner remained tenant of landlady Mst. Ghous Bibi, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent No.3, in the demised premises namely shop No.2 situated on ground floor of Ahmed Asa Jalal Building on Plot No.RC-117/4B, Kalianjee Street, Nabi Bux, Road, Gazdar Abad, Ranchore Lines, Karachi; that in the earlier round FRA No.406 of 2010, filed by landlady Mst. Ghous Bibi against the dismissal of her rent application, was allowed and the petitioner was directed to vacate the demised premises and hand over its possession to the said landlady and ultimately the matter was brought before this Court in Constitutional Petition No.S-15 of 2013 re-Mst. Amina Bibi v. VIth Additional District Judge Karachi South and others, which was dismissed, granting four months' time to the petitioner for vacating the demised premises, vide order dated 02.05.2016, passed by this Court.

3. Learned advocate for the petitioner has mainly contended that the Executing Court has issued writ of possession on 30.08.2016 i.e. before four months' period, ending on 01.09.2016, allowed to the petitioner by this Court; and, that the application under section 151 of the Code, praying for re-calling the writ of possession, filed by the petitioner, has been dismissed by the learned Rent Controller/Executive Court, vide impugned order dated 23.09.2016, which, per him, is illegal. He, therefore, prays that the impugned order dated 23.09.2016 and writ of possession, issued by the learned Executing Court may be set aside.

4. From the above it is crystal clear that only the grievance urged by the petitioner, is that as to why the Executing Court, issued writ of possession on 30-08-2016 i.e. before expiration of the time allowed by this Court to the petitioner for vacating the demised premises, while dismissing Constitutional Petition No.S-15 of 2013 re-Mst. Amna Bibi v. VI-Additional District Judge, Karachi South and others, filed by the petitioner. Patently, the alleged grievance of the petitioner is absurd, for, firstly, the application under section 151 of the Code against the issuance of writ of possession was filed by the petitioner before the Executing Court on 10.09.2016 i.e. eight days after four months' period allowed to the petitioner for vacating the demised premises by this Court; secondly, mere issuance of writ of possession one or two days prior to the expiration of the period given to the petitioner could hardly furnish a ground for her to file the aforesaid application, it rather adversely reflects upon the petitioner, for, instead of vacating the demised premises in terms of order dated 02.05.2016, passed by this Court, while dismissing her aforesaid petition, the petitioner filed the application in question before the Executing Court and, the rent proceedings had started in the year 2006 and the same were terminated finally in the year 2016 i.e. after 10 years, but the petitioner by moving applications has been making attempts to protract her possession and to deprive the decree holder the fruits of decree/eviction order in her favour as long as she could, which is deprecated. Reference can be made to the case of Happy Family Associate through Chief Executive v. Messrs Pakistan International Trading Company (PLD 2006 SC 226), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has held that:-

"It is unfortunate that some litigants attempt to frustrate the decree/its execution by resorting to provision of section 12(2) and section 151, C.P.C., unnecessarily."

5. In view of what has been stated above, I am of the considered view that, by dismissing the petitioner's application in question, learned Rent Controller has not committed any illegality. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also not been able to point out any illegality or jurisdictional defect in the impugned order, attracting exercise of constitutional jurisdictional of this Court, and, thus, the petition being misconceived and not maintainable, is liable to be dismissed.

6. Above are the reasons of short order dated 25.10.2016, whereby this petition was dismissed in limine with no order as to costs.

MQ/A-107/Sindh Petition dismissed.