Order Sheet

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

F.R.A. No.39 of 2025

[ Raja Saeed Ahmed Khan v. Eijaz Hussain & another ]

Appellant:                             In person.      

Respondent                           M/s. Ghazi Khan and Javed Malik, Advocates.

Date of Hearing & order:    17.02.2026

ARSHAD HUSSAIN KHAN J.             The appellant, by means of this First Rent Appeal filed under Section 24 of the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963, has assailed the orders dated 30.07.2025, 16.08.2025. 19.08.2025 and 23.08.2025 (the “impugned orders”) passed by the learned IXth Rent Controller, Karachi-South in Execution Application No.03/2025 arising out of Rent Case No.10/2024, whereby the execution application was allowed with directions to break open the lock with police assistance, and the application under Section 476 C.P.C. filed by the judgment-debtor was dismissed.

2.         The precise facts are that the appellant is a tenant of the respondent in respect of Flat No.20, Block-13, situated in Defence Garden Apartments, Phase-I, DHA, Karachi (the “demised premises”). In relation thereto, Rent Cases No.10 and 15 of 2024 were instituted by the parties, wherein a tentative rent order was passed. However, upon non-compliance with the said order, the defence of the appellant was struck off and the appellant, along with any person claiming through or under him, was directed to vacate the demised premises. The said order was challenged by the appellant in earlier FRA bearing No.05 of 2025 and vide order dated 27.05.2025 this Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the material available on record dismissed the appeal with following observations :-

“4.       I have heard both the learned counsels and perused the record. I have more specifically examined the diary sheets of the rent cases mentioned above. It is evident from the bare perusal of the diary sheets that the Appellant is only making attempts to delay the matter on one pretext or the other. Further, it is most ironic to note that the Appellant filed Misc. Rent Application No.15/2024 against the Respondent, seeking the following prayer:-

“a.       It is therefore respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this application and direct the opponent/landlord/ owner to make the necessary repairs of the flat which are essential to render the building fit for occupation, before it collapses and cause great damage to life and property of others/ flats adjacent/ underneath."

5.         It is further very astonishing to note that paragraph number 2 of the said application the relationship between the parties is admitted. The same is reproduced below: -

"That the owner/opponent is residing in Lahore has been receiving the monthly Rent from the applicant in his bank account no 02651004511622 of Bank Alfalah samanabad Lahore through Bank Alfalah branch of karachi by on line transfer. The bank deposit slips of rent of various months are attached berewith and marked as Annex B."

6.         The Appellant, in person has made very abhorrent attempt to misguide this court. He initially made several attempts to get the instant Appeal adjourned. The said request was denied as the Appellant was continually seeking adjournments in the matter. Thereafter, whilst arguing the instant Appeal the appellant made submissions denying the relationship between the respective parties. It was only upon deeper appreciation and perusal of the record that the above noted contradiction surfaced. When confronted with the record as mentioned above the appellant failed to give any plausible explanation.

            In light of what has been held above the instant Appeal is without merit, and the same is dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- to be deposited in the High Court Clinic by the Appellant.”

Against the above order of this Court, the appellant filed Civil Petition No.924-K of 2025 and the Supreme Court of Pakistan was pleased to decline the leave and the petition was dismissed by order dated 24.07.2025. For the sake of ready-reference, the relevant portion of the order is being reproduced hereunder:-

“Heard the petitioner, in-person, and have gone through the record. The petitioner has not been able to point out any substantial perversity, illegality, procedural irregularity or jurisdictional defect in the impugned order of the High Court, warranting interference. Leave is accordingly declined and this petition is dismissed.”

3.         The record further reflects that despite attainment of the ejectment order up to the level of the Supreme Court, the appellant failed to deliver vacant physical possession of the demised premises. Consequently, the respondent/decree-holder filed an execution application seeking implementation of the ejectment order, which was allowed vide order dated 30.07.2025. Through the same order, the application under Section 476 C.P.C. filed by the present appellant/judgment-debtor was dismissed. Subsequently, on the respondent’s application, the learned Executing Court passed order dated 16.08.2025, whereby a writ of possession was issued with permission to break open the lock, if necessary, with police aid. Thereafter, in light of the bailiff’s report confirming that possession of the premises had been handed over to the respondent/decree-holder on 23.08.2025, the appellant/judgment-debtor was directed to collect his articles from the premises within fifteen days, failing which appropriate orders would be passed. The aforesaid orders have been impugned in the present proceedings.

4.         Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the impugned orders passed by the learned Executing Court are illegal, improper, and not in accordance with the facts and law, and therefore liable to be set aside. He submits that the impugned orders are cursory, perverse, arbitrary and perfunctory, having been passed in haste, in violation of the principles of natural justice, and by committing material irregularities and illegalities. He further argues that the learned Executing Court failed to consider the objections raised by the appellant, including the fact that the appellant’s application for recall of the ejectment order was pending before the Rent Controller. It is also contended that the impugned orders were passed without proper application of judicial mind and without due consideration of the material placed on record by the appellant. Learned counsel lastly prays that the present appeal be allowed as prayed for.

5.         Learned counsel for the respondent, while supporting the impugned orders, submits that the directions issued by the learned Executing Court are purely ministerial and administrative in nature, having been passed solely for implementation of a decree which has already attained finality upon dismissal of the appellant’s challenge by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. He contends that the said orders do not give rise to any fresh cause of action, nor do they furnish any legal ground for maintaining the present First Rent Appeal; thus, the appeal is incompetent and devoid of merit. It is further argued that the impugned orders, being interlocutory and procedural, cannot be utilized as a device to reopen the merits of the case. Learned counsel lastly submits that the present appeal is nothing but a delaying tactic aimed at prolonging the appellant’s unauthorized occupation of the premises, and prays that the same be dismissed with exemplary costs.

6.         I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record carefully with their assistance.

7.         It is a well-settled principle of law that an Executing Court is bound to execute the decree as it stands and cannot go behind the decree to examine its legality, correctness, or merits. The jurisdiction of the Executing Court under Section 47 C.P.C. is confined strictly to the questions relating to the execution, discharge, or satisfaction of the decree, it does not extend to reappraisal of the factual or legal basis upon which the decree was passed. In this case, the ejectment order passed after the appellant’s defense was struck off, was upheld by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, thereby attaining finality. Consequently, the Executing Court rightly dismissed the application filed by the judgment debtor as its function is purely ministerial, to ensure the decree-holder reaps the fruits of litigation without further obstruction.

8.         The present First Rent Appeal is a classic instance of litigation pursued solely to prolong the inevitable. Having failed to obtain relief on merits before this Court and the Supreme Court, the appellant is now seeking to abuse the process of law by challenging purely procedural measures. The impugned orders do not constitute fresh adjudications; they are the necessary mechanisms to enforce a binding judicial determination. Once the Apex Court has declined leave and maintained the ejectment order, the Executing Court is legally and constitutionally mandated to give effect to that finality.

9.         In view of the foregoing, instant F.R.A. is held to be legally incompetent, not maintainable and also devoid of any merit. Accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed.

JUDGE

 Naveed PA