UMER DIN AND ANOTHER vs MUHAMMAD HANIF AND ANOTHER
This matter arises from a petition challenging the dismissal of an objection petition filed in execution proceedings concerning a decree for specific performance of an agreement to sell a house. The house had been transferred to Mst. Rafiqan by the Settlement Department against claims belonging to her and her two sons, Umer Din and Hakeem-ud-Din (the petitioners). After the failure of successive appeals and petitions up to the Supreme Court by Mst. Rafiqan, the decree-holder sought execution, prompting the petitioners to file an objection petition. The trial court, additional district judge, and High Court successively dismissed the objection and subsequent challenges. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioners could successfully obstruct the execution of the final decree. The Supreme Court held that the objection petition was entirely frivolous and filed by the sons merely to prolong litigation and retain possession of the disputed property. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that frivolous objections in execution proceedings designed to delay execution will not be entertained.
- Whether an objection petition filed by family members in execution proceedings can be maintained to obstruct the execution of a final decree for specific performance?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of lower courts dismissing a frivolous objection petition in execution proceedings?
ORDER
1. ' ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-This case relates to an objection petition in execution proceedings.
2. Muhammad Hanif respondent No, 1 filed a suit against Mst. Rafiqan respondent No, 2 for specific performance of an-agreement to sell, a house, which had been transferred to her by the Settlement Department against a claim belonging to her and her two sons Umer Din and Hakeem- ud-Din (petitioners herein). The suit was decreed, whereupon Mst. Rafiqan filed an appeal, but the same was dismissed by the learned Additional/District Judge. She then filed a second appeal in the High Court which too was dismissed. Thereafter she approached the Supreme Court but her petition for leave to appeal was dismissed. Muhammad Hanif respondent No, I then sought the execution of the decree, but Umer Din and Hakam Din petitioners the sons of Mst. Rafiqan filed on objection petition. This was, however, dismissed by the learned trial Court. The petitioner then filed an appeal. That too was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge. They again challenged the said order before the High Court which was dismissed vide the impugned judgment. Hence the present petition. Considering the history of the case, and a reading of the orders of the various Courts which considered the matter of various stages, it is evident that the objection petition was a frivolous one and had been filed by the two sons of Mst. Rakan merely to prolong the matter in a desperate bid to retain the possession of the house in dispute as long as possible. As such we do not consider it a fit case for interference.
3. ' The petition is, therefore, dismissed.