ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Constt: Petition No.S-138 of 2007.

Date of hearing

Order with signature of Judge

Before:  Mr.Justice Irshad Ali Shah.

1. For orders on office objection “A”.  

2. For order son maintainability.

29.11.2018.

                   Mr. Irshad Ali Chandio, Advocate for petitioners.                                          Mr. Mukhtiar Ahmed Khoso, Advocate for private respondent.

                        Mr.  Qazi Muhammad Bux, State Counsel.

~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~

                   The facts in brief necessary for disposal of instant constitutional petition are that a suit for possession was filed by the private respondent against the petitioners, it was decreed by learned trial Court, the appeal preferred against such decree was dismissed by learned Appellate Court. Subsequent to it, a revision and review applications so filed by the petitioners were also dismissed by this Court. Subsequently, Execution Application was filed by the private respondent, it was allowed, the revision application so preferred against such order was dismissed by learned Revisoinal Court, which is impugned by the petitioners before this Court by way of instant constitutional petition.

                   It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the decree passed in favour of private respondent could not be satisfied; the learned executing Court has ignored such fact while accepting the execution application. By contending so, he sought for reversal of the impugned order of learned Revisoinal Court.

                   Learned counsel for the private respondent and learned State Counsel have sought for dismissal of the instant constitutional petition by contending that it has been moved only to defeat the satisfaction of decree which has already attained the finality.

                   I have considered the above arguments and perused the record.

                   Admittedly, the decree passed in favour of private respondents has already attained finality with dismissal of review and revision application by this Court. The fruit of the decree could not be denied to the private respondent under the pretext that the decree so passed in his favour could not be satisfied for want of demarcation of boundaries of the suit property. No wrong has been committed by learned Revisional Court by passing the impugned order, thereby refusing to interfere with the order of learned Executing Court. Consequently, instant constitutional petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.

                                                                                     JUDGE

..