-O.XXI R. 23-A--Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 199-- Objection petition--Dismissed--Limitation--Obligation of--Constitutional Courts--It is case of petitioners that execution-petition has been filed with an inordinate delay and is statute barred-

 PLJ 2022 Lahore 183

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908)--

----O.XXI R. 23-A--Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 199--
Objection petition--Dismissed--Limitation--Obligation of--Constitutional Courts--It is case of petitioners that execution-petition has been filed with an inordinate delay and is statute barred--Not only was objection regarding limitation taken up in objection petition but also part of grounds taken in revision petition and strangely issue was not dealt with by revisional Court as well--Two orders are plainly unlawful and an interference is called for in constitutional jurisdiction of this Court--Two Courts were under an obligation to have dealt with all legal issues raised by petitioner in objection petition and to have decided them by a judgment based on reasons--Petitions allowed.            [Pp. 183 & 184] A & B

Sahibzada Muzaffar Ali, Advocate for Petitioners.

Ch. Sultan Mehmood, Advocate for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 27.9.2021.

 PLJ 2022 Lahore 183
Present: Shahid Karim, J.
LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (LDA) through D.G. and 2 others--Petitioners
versus
ABDUL RAZZAQ and 2 others--Respondents
W.P No. 46897 of 2021, decided on 27.9.2021.

Order

This order shall also decide a connected petition W.P No. 46902 of 2021 which challenges the same orders passed on 6.4.2021 whereby the objection petition of the present petitioners was dismissed as well as the order dated 24.6.2021 passed by the Revisional Court on a revision petition filed by the petitioners to challenge the earlier order dated 6.4.2021.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that a number of objections raising serious legal issues were taken in the objection petition filed by the present petitioners which have not been adverted to by the Courts below. One such objection was relating to the question of limitation and it is the case of the petitioners that the execution petition has been filed with an inordinate delay and is statute barred.

3. I have heard the parties and do find indeed that the Courts below have not even dealt with the question of limitation in respect of filing of execution petition. It has only been mentioned in the impugned orders that filing of objection petition is with an intent to delay the execution of the decree. It has been noted that not only was the objection regardings limitation taken up in the objection petition but also part of the grounds taken in the revision petition and strangely the issue was not dealt with by the revisional Court as well. The two orders are plainly unlawful and an interference is called for in the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. The two Courts were under an obligation to have dealt with all legal issues raised by the petitioner in the objection petition and to have decided them by a judgment based on reasons.

4. In view of the above, these petitions are allowed. The impugned orders are set aside. The matter shall be deemed to be pending with the executing Court which shall decide all issues raised in the objection petition including the issue of limitation.

(Y.A.)  Petition allowed