PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Collector, Bahawalpur vs GHULAM RASOOL
The respondents filed civil suits seeking declarations that their pay scales were incorrectly fixed and claiming arrears of salary. The Senior Civil Judge decreed the suits in their favour. The Provincial Government failed to file appeals against these decrees. Subsequently, during execution proceedings, the Provincial Government raised objections regarding the respondents' entitlement to the awarded pay scales. The executing court rejected these objections, and subsequent appeals and revisions before the Additional District Judge and the High Court were also dismissed. The Provincial Government sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the executing court cannot go behind the decree. Since it was undisputed that the Civil Court possessed the jurisdiction to entertain the original suits, the executing court was bound by the decree. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petitions for leave to appeal, affirming the principle that an executing court lacks the authority to challenge or look behind a valid decree passed by a court of competent jurisdiction.
- Can an executing court go behind a decree passed by a court of competent jurisdiction?
- Is an objection regarding the merits of a decree maintainable during execution proceedings when no appeal was filed against the original decree?
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---The respondents in these two petitions filed two separate civil suits for declarations that their pays had been fixed incorrectly; that they were entitled to refixation of their pays in the proper scales and arrears of salary. The suits were decreed by the Senior Civil Judge at Bahawalpur. The Provincial Government did not care to file appeals against the judgments and decrees of the trial Court. However, during the course of execution proceedings an objection was raised that the respondents were not entitled to the scales to which they had been held entitled under the decrees. The objection was rejected by the executing Court and the appeal of the Provincial Government before the Additional District Judge and revision before the High Court failed. It now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. The contention which the learned Additional Advocate-General wishes to raise in support of these petitions relates to the propriety of the decrees passed in favour of the respondents. It is well-settled that an executing Court cannot go behind the decree. It is no longer disputed that the Civil Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the suits of the respondents. We would, therefore, dismiss these petitions. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.
Cited by 4 cases
- Zarmash and another vs Haji Naeem Shah 2021 PHC 124, 2022 PLD Peshawar 33
- Abdul Habib vs Fazal Muhammad and 2 others 2013 C.L.R. 33
- ABDUL HABIB Versus FAZAL MUHAMMAD 2012 MLD 1856
- Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Gujranwala, through its 2016 C.L.R. 922, 2016 LHC 1540, K.L.R. 2016 Revenue Cases 39