MUHAMMAD BAAZ vs HALQA PUTWARI MUZA MATHRA, PESHAWAR S — 2021 CLC 689 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

MUHAMMAD BAAZ VS HALQA PUTWARI MUZA MATHRA, PESHAWAR S.47---Execution of decree---Scope---Incorporation in revenue record---Limitation---Scope---Civil Court passed a consent decree fifty years ago, however, its implementation/execution was not incorporated in the revenue record---Executing Court as well as Appellate Court dismissed the execution petition of the petitioners( successors-in-interest of the decree-holder) declaring the same as time-barred ---Held, that there were three stages of litigation: institution of the litigation, its adjudication by the Court of competent jurisdiction and its implementation---Last stage of litigation was known as execution---Once a decree/judgment was passed by the Court, it was duty of the person against whom the judgment was passed (judgment-debtor) to give effect to the decree so as to enable the decree-holder to enjoy the benefits of the judgment---Although, for the execution of a decree a specific mechanism had been provided by the law for which not only an application was required to be filed within time but name of person, against whom an application for execution was filed, was also required to be arrayed under the mode/manner provided in the Civil Procedure Code, 1908---Application for execution was needed when the judgment-debtor was either not ready to act upon the terms and conditions of the decree or avoiding its implementation---In all circumstances, execution of the decree, for all intents and purposes, was sought against the judgment-debtor and none else---Execution petition, in the present case, was neither against the judgment-debtor nor there was a decree against the respondents (Revenue Officers) which was to be executed through an application for execution; it was simplicitor an application for implementation of the decree for incorporation of petitioners' names in the revenue record instead of the vendee/judgment debtor , therefore, such application could neither be dismissed being time-barred nor the Revenue Officers could contest/controvert the same---Officials of revenue hierarchy, in the present case, were duty bound to incorporate the decree passed in the year 1969, especially when the dispute was amicably settled between the parties and consent decree was passed in favour of predecessor-in-interest of petitioners by the then Civil Court---High Court set aside the impugned orders passed by the both the Courts below and directed Revenue Officers to incorporate the decree in the revenue record---Revision petition was allowed, in circumstances.

MUHAMMAD BAAZ vs HALQA PUTWARI MUZA MATHRA, PESHAWAR S — 2021 CLC 689 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2021 CLC