Mst. ARSHAD BIBI vs ALI MUHAMMAD and another
This civil revision arises from a dispute regarding the execution of a decree for possession of a house. The petitioner filed an objection petition against the execution proceedings, but the executing court dismissed the petition as infructuous after the decree-holder reported that possession had been delivered and the decree satisfied. This dismissal was upheld by the appellate court. The core legal question was whether an executing court can dismiss an objection petition regarding title and possession simply because the decree has been executed and satisfied. The Lahore High Court held that the executing court acted without lawful authority and jurisdiction. The Court ruled that under the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, an executing court is legally obligated to adjudicate all questions pertaining to the execution, satisfaction, title, and possession of the property in dispute. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned orders, restored the objection petition, and directed the executing court to decide the matter on its merits, affirming that a separate suit is expressly barred for such disputes.
- Does an executing court have the jurisdiction to decide questions of title and possession raised in an objection petition?
- Can an executing court dismiss an objection petition solely on the ground that the decree has been satisfied and possession delivered?
- Is a separate suit barred for determining questions of title and possession arising during the execution of a decree?
- Order XXI Rule 100, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Order XXI Rule 103, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Section 47, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
' A decree for possession of a house was passed in favour of respondent No,1 against the respondent No,2 by a leaned Civil Judge, Faisalabad on 27-11-1995. The decree was put into execution. An objection petition was filed by the petitioner on 5-12-1995. The possession was delivered to the respondent No,1 in execution of the decree on 15-12-1995. On 15-2-1996 it was reported to the Court by the learned counsel for the said decree-holder that the possession has been delivered and the decree has been satisfied. The learned trial Court proceeded to consign the file of the execution to the record as having been satisfied on the same date. The objection petition was taken up on 30-5-1996 and after noting that the execution stands consigned to the records on the objection petition has been rendered infructuous, the same was dismissed by the learned executing Court. A first appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by a learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad on 14-7-1996.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in terms of Order XXI, rule 100 read with Order XXI, rule 103, Cr.P.C. The only remedy available to his client is the said objection petition and all questions regarding title and possession are to be decided by executing Court. The respondent No,1 has been served for today but no one has turned for him and he is proceeded against ex parte.
While respondent No,2 present in Court states that he has no interest in this matter.
3. It should not take me long to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. Under the said provisions relied upon by the learned counsel read with section 47, C.P.C. An executing Court is bound to decide the questions pertaining to the execution and satisfaction of the decree. The said Rules further provide that all questions pertaining to title and possession are also to be decided by the executing Court and a separate suit has been expressly barred. This being so I do find that learned Courts below have acted without lawful authority and without jurisdiction while refusing to decide the said objection petition only on the ground that possession has been delivered and decree has been satisfied. This civil revision accordingly is allowed. The impugned orders of both the Courts below are set aside. The result would be that the objection petition filed by the petitioner shall be deemed to be pending before the learned executing Court at Faisalabad where she will appear on 15-7-2002. The learned executing Court shall requisition the records summon the decree-holder and proceed further in the matter and decide the petition in accordance with law.
No order as to costs.
4. A copy of this order be immediately remitted to the learned District Judge, Faisalabad for further compliance.
Cited by 6 cases
- SIJLAIM GUL vs ABDUR REHMAN And Others 2011 YLR 511
- SULAIM GUL vs ABDUR REHMAN and others 2011 PLJ Peshawar 190
- Mian BAHADUR SHAH vs SAID AFZAL 2007 CLC 542
- NOSHERAWAN KHAN and others vs ABDUL WAHAB and others 2007 YLR 1812
- MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TOBA TEK SINGH and 5 others 2005 YLR 1795
- MUHAMMAD IQBAL vs ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE LIAQATPUR and 2 others 2005 PLJ Lahore 1258