Pakistan Case LawPERVEEN SITARA and others Versus MUHAMMAD YOUNAS
This matter arises from execution proceedings following a preliminary decree in a partition suit, wherein the petitioners, holding a 1/4th share in the property, sought reimbursement for alleged expenses incurred on repairs and renovations. The executing Court rejected this claim, a decision subsequently upheld by the first appellate Court and the High Court in a writ petition. The core legal question was whether a judgment-debtor could claim reimbursement for property improvements during execution proceedings when such a plea was not raised during the original suit. The Supreme Court held that the claim was rightly rejected, noting that the petitioners failed to raise the plea of repair expenses in their written statement during the original suit proceedings. The Court affirmed that the executing Court cannot entertain claims that should have been adjudicated during the trial phase. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, finding no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts.
- Can a judgment-debtor claim reimbursement for property repairs during execution proceedings if the plea was not raised in the written statement during the original suit?
- Does an executing court have the authority to adjudicate claims for property improvements that were not part of the original decree?
SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.---The above petition arises out of execution proceedings in a suit for partition where a preliminary decree has been passed on 3-7-1986. According to the preliminary decree, the petitioners are entitled to get 1/4th share while respondent is held entitled to 3/4th share in the suit property. During the proceedings before the executing Court, the petitioners who were judgment-debtors through application under section 47, C.P.C. Contended that they were entitled to reimbursement of Rs,15,500 which they allegedly spent on repairs and renovation of the suit property. The claim of the petitioners was rejected by the executing Court and the appeal against the order also failed. The petitioners challenged the decision of the executing Court as well as that of first appellate Court in Writ Petition No, 3384 of 1993 which was dismissed in limine by the learned Judge in Chambers upholding the orders passed by the lower Courts.
2.The learned counsel for the petitioner in seeking leave to appeal has repeated all those contentions which were raised before the Courts below and which were repelled. The learned Judge in Chambers observed that the petitioners were impleaded in the suit on 24-2-1984 while the 1/4th share in the property was purchased by them from Mst. Hajran on 13-12-1983. It was further observed by the learned Judge in Chambers that in the written statement filed by the petitioners in the suit, no plea was raised that the petitioners had spent any amount on repairs and improvement of the property. The claim of adjustment of the amount allegedly spent by them was, accordingly, rejected.
3.There appears to be absolutely no ground justifying interference with the order of the learned Judge in Chambers. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.
Judges on this bench
- Muhammad Rafiq Tarar605 judgments
- Saiduzzaman Siddiqui789 judgments