.
Contentions Trial Court’s order Revisional Court’s order
That respondents have no 4. Perusal of record transpires 6. As far as the status of impugned decree
concern with Khasra No.8427, that the respondents No.1 to 5 is concerned, this court being subordinate
therefore, decree is wrongly have admitted the ownership to the court granting decree, has no power
being executed against said and inheritance mutation of to ascertain this aspect of these at this
Khasra, which is owned by the Nizam Din in their written reply. stage. Whether the impugned decree is
petitioner. Now the petitioners have filed executable or not, is not the issue to be
the instant application for the determined by this court through revision
As per Khasra Nos.8427/1, compliance of order of petition. The only forum e to the petitioner
8427/2 did not physically exist Honourable Lahore High Court for the purpose is the court which has
as same were not mentioned in Lahore dated 09.09.2002. passed the decree or the court above. This
Parcha Musavi, therefore, any Hence, the respondents No.1 decree has been passed by Lahore High
amendment through execution to 5 are directed to enter new Court Lahore hence (1) the question of
is absolutely beyond the Khasra Nos.8427/1 and 8427/2 incompetency of the decree under the
decree, hence, not executable. in Akas Musavi as well as Punjab Tenancy Act, (2) the question of
Shajra Parcha Kushtwar and disentitlement of the respondents on the
Even otherwise, the execution submit report on 08.07.2019. ground of being evacuee to the disputed
petition is barred by 12-years. Separate letter be issued to land and (3) the question of incorrect
respondents No.1 to 5 for determination of khasra No.8427 could be
information and compliance. raised in appeal only and not in civil revision
Ahlmad is directed to issue before this court in the light of principle of
separate letter for fixed date. law that an executing court cannot go
behind the decree. Hence the arguments on
the above points from petitioner side are
misconceived. The revered case laws relied
on and referred by the appellant have no
nexus with the matter in hand. The facts
and circumstances discussed in the
deferent citations don't correspond to those
of the case in hand.
7. So far as question of limitation is
concerned, section 48 CPC itself explains
the actual position of this case in the words
below:
“Section 48: Execution barred in
certain cases... (1) where an
application to execute a decree, not
being a decree granting an injunction
has been made, no order for the
execution of the same decree shall
be made upon any fresh application
presented after the expiration of six
years.”
8. The relevant portion of the quoted section
as underlined above manifestly sorts out
that this limitation of six years doesn't apply
on a decree granting injunction. The decree
under discussion is for declaration along
with mandatory injunction therefore the only
remedy available to the decree holder of
such decree is to file application under
Order XXI rule 32 CPC. The wisdom behind
this exception to a decree of injunction is
that in such decree whenever the decree
holder moves for the execution thereof and
it is not acted upon, the breach of the
decree takes place and on each successive
breach of the injunction the decree can be
enforced under this rule by an application.
made within three years of the breach vide
Article 181 Limitation Act; reliance is placed
on 1988 SCMR 151.
9. In the line of above discourse, the
question of limitation doesn't disturb the
merits of the application under Order XXI
rule 32 CPC. Here in this case as the matter
relates to mandatory injunction and the
respondents have claimed that they have
tried their best to get it implemented in
revenue record by moving applications to
the concerned authority but the authority
has not enforced that decree hence they
have taken recourse to this provision of law.
In the light of the ground taken by the
respondents this act of moving application
under Order XXI rule 32 CPC is well
justified. In this preview of the matter the
application moved by the respondents
before the learned Executing Court is not hit
by limitation.
10. For what has been discussed above,
the impugned order is held not to suffer
from any illegality for want of jurisdiction.
The learned Executing Court has rightly
exercised the jurisdiction vested with it
under the law hence the impugned order
doesn't invite any interference by this court
in revisional jurisdiction therefore the
revision petition in hand being devoid of
merit is hereby dismissed. File be
consigned to record room after due
completion.
