Surety is responsible the amount he submitted surety bond.
ضامن کی ذمہ داری صرف اسی رقم تک محدود ہے جس کی ضمانت دی گئی ہو
تعارف
لاہور ہائیکورٹ ملتان بینچ کے اس اہم فیصلے میں عدالت نے ضامن کی قانونی ذمہ داری کے دائرہ کار کو واضح کرتے ہوئے قرار دیا کہ ضامن صرف اسی حد تک ذمہ دار ہوتا ہے جس رقم کی اس نے باقاعدہ ضمانت دی ہو۔ محض بعد کے بیانات یا حلف ناموں کی بنیاد پر اس پر زائد رقم کی ذمہ داری عائد نہیں کی جا سکتی، جب تک اس نے نئی یا اضافی ضمانت فراہم نہ کی ہو۔
پس منظرِ مقدمہ
اس مقدمے میں فیملی کورٹ کے ایک ڈگری ہولڈر نے نان نفقہ اور جہیز کی رقم کی وصولی کے لیے کارروائی شروع کی۔ فیصلے پر عمل درآمد کے دوران ایک فریق کو ضمانت پر رہا کیا گیا اور اس مقصد کے لیے ضامن نے چار لاکھ روپے کی حد تک ضمانتی مچلکہ جمع کروایا۔ بعد ازاں جب مکمل ڈگری کی رقم ادا نہ ہو سکی تو ضامن کے خلاف کارروائی شروع کی گئی اور اس کی جائیداد کی نیلامی تک کا مرحلہ آ گیا۔
ضمانتی مچلکہ اور اس کی حد
عدالت نے ضمانتی مچلکے کے متن اور عدالتی احکامات کا تفصیلی جائزہ لیتے ہوئے واضح کیا کہ ضامن نے واضح طور پر صرف چار لاکھ روپے تک کی ضمانت دی تھی۔ نہ تو عدالتی حکم میں اور نہ ہی ضمانتی مچلکے میں یہ درج تھا کہ ضامن پوری ڈگری کی رقم کا ذمہ دار ہو گا۔ قانون کے مطابق ضمانت کا معاہدہ سختی سے اسی حد تک نافذ ہوتا ہے جس حد تک ضامن نے خود کو پابند کیا ہو۔
بیانات اور حلف نامے کی حیثیت
عدالت نے اس نکتے پر بھی روشنی ڈالی کہ ضامن کی جانب سے بعد میں دیے گئے بیانات یا حلف نامے، جن میں اس نے ادائیگی کی نیت ظاہر کی، کسی نئی قانونی ضمانت کے مترادف نہیں سمجھے جا سکتے۔ یہ بیانات اسی اصل ضمانت کے دائرے میں تھے اور ان سے ضامن کی ذمہ داری میں اضافہ نہیں ہو سکتا۔
اصل مدیون کی رہائی اور اس کا اثر
عدالت نے اس امر کو بھی مدنظر رکھا کہ اصل مدیون کو عدالت نے حالات کے پیش نظر ڈگری کی مزید ادائیگی سے بری کر دیا تھا۔ جب اصل مدیون کو ذمہ داری سے سبکدوش کر دیا جائے تو اس کا لازمی اثر ضامن کی ذمہ داری پر بھی پڑتا ہے، کیونکہ ضامن کی ذمہ داری مدیون کی ذمہ داری کے ساتھ جڑی ہوتی ہے۔
عدالتی فیصلہ
لاہور ہائیکورٹ نے اپیلیٹ کورٹ کے اس فیصلے کو کالعدم قرار دیا جس میں ضامن کو پوری ڈگری کی رقم کا ذمہ دار ٹھہرایا گیا تھا۔ عدالت نے قرار دیا کہ ضامن اپنی ضمانتی رقم چار لاکھ روپے ادا کر چکا ہے، لہٰذا اس سے زائد کسی رقم کی وصولی قانوناً درست نہیں۔ اس بنیاد پر ایگزیکیوٹنگ کورٹ کا فیصلہ بحال کر دیا گیا۔
اہم قانونی اصول
یہ فیصلہ اس اصول کو مضبوط کرتا ہے کہ ضامن کی ذمہ داری محدود اور متعین ہوتی ہے۔ ضمانت کے معاہدے کی سخت تشریح کی جائے گی اور ضامن کو اس سے زائد کسی ذمہ داری میں نہیں ڈالا جا سکتا جس کا اس نے واضح طور پر اقرار نہ کیا ہو۔ یہ فیصلہ عدالتی عمل درآمد میں ضامن کے حقوق کے تحفظ کے حوالے سے ایک اہم نظیر ہے۔
Must read Judgement
Stereo.HCJDA 38.
Judgment Sheet
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT,
MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
….
Writ Petition No.5215 of 2022.
Masood-ul-Hassan.
Versus
Additional District Judge, etc.
J U D G M E N T.
Date of hearing:
02.07.2024.
Petitioner by:
M/s Muhammad Afzal Chaudhary &
Muhammad Akhtar Chaudhry,
Advocates.
Respondent No.2-4 by: Mr. Ejaz Hussain Mughal, Advocate.
AHMAD NADEEM ARSHAD, J.
Through this
Constitutional Petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of
the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner assailed the
vires of order dated 05.03.2022 whereby the learned Appellate Court
while accepting the appeal of respondents No.2 to 4, set-aside the
order dated 28.09.2021 and directed the learned Executing Court to
proceed further in accordance with law to satisfy the decree.
2.
Shorn of unnecessary details, respondents No.2 to 4 instituted
a suit for recovery of maintenance allowance and dowry articles
against the respondents No.5 & 6 on 20.11.2014; that suit was
resisted by respondents No.5 & 6 through filing contesting written
statement; that after failure of pre-trial reconciliation proceedings
interim maintenance was fixed; that respondents No.5 & 6 failed to
pay the interim maintenance allowance as well as cross-examine the
plaintiffs’ witnesses, hence, ex-parte proceedings were conducted
vide order dated 25.04.2015 and learned Trial Court after recording
ex-parte evidence decreed the suit vide judgment & decree dated
29.06.2015 and declared that respondent No.2/plaintiff No.1 is
W.P. No.5215 of 2022.
2
entitled to recover maintenance allowance @ Rs.2,000/- per month
from institution of the suit till subsistence of marriage, the
respondents No.3 & 4 were declared entitled to recover maintenance
allowance @ Rs.2,000/- per month from the institution of suit till
their legal entitlement and also decreed alternate price of dowry
articles as Rs.2,00,000/-; that respondents No.2 to 4 filed an
execution petition for the satisfaction of the said decree on
24.07.2015; that respondents No.5 & 6 failed to appear before the
Court despite issuance of notices, therefore, non-bailable warrants of
arrest were issued against them and in the light of said warrants
respondent No.5 was arrested and produced before the Court on
03.11.2015; that said judgment debtor (respondent No.5) moved an
application for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree
coupled with an application for suspension of said decree on
18.11.2015; that learned counsel for the decree-holders made a no
objection statement qua suspension of ex-parte judgment and decree
and release of judgment-debtor subject to furnishing surety bond in
the sum of Rs.400,000/- with one local surety; that the learned
executing Court subject to submission of surety bond in the sum of
Rs.400,000/- with one local surety in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the Court suspended the judgment and decree dated
29.06.2015 and released the judgment-debtor vide order dated
28.11.2015; that petitioner stood surety of said respondent No.5 to
the tune of Rs.4,00,000/- and in this regard he submitted surety bond
on 03.12.2015; that respondent No.6 (husband of respondent No.2)
was also arrested and sent to civil prison for one year on 12.11.2019;
that as the decree was not satisfied, therefore, proceedings against
the petitioner/surety were initiated and his property was attached
vide order dated 26.07.2019; that petitioner applied for staying the
auction proceedings and got recorded his statement on 07.10.2017 to
the effect that if the judgment debtor failed to pay the decree then he
being the surety would be responsible to satisfy the decree and in
case of default he will have no objection upon the auction of his
property; that he also submitted an affidavit on 11.11.2019 by
W.P. No.5215 of 2022.
3
maintaining that he has paid Rs.50,000/- today and will deposit
further amount of Rs.50,000/- on 12.11.2019 and undertakes that he
will be bound to pay the remaining decretal amount; that respondent
No.5/judgment debtor moved an application for his release which
was allowed by the learned Executing Court vide order dated
22.12.2020 with the observation that the father is bound to pay the
maintenance allowance to his children and in case of his nonpayment the grandfather is liable to pay the same if he has sufficient
resources to pay the same but there is nothing on record to show that
he has sufficient means to pay the decretal amount and keeping in
view his old age he was released from the jail; that respondents No.2
to 4 assailed said order through preferring an appeal which was
dismissed vide order dated 30.04.2021 by maintaining that as the
surety (petitioner) got recorded his statement on 17.10.2017 that he
will pay the decretal amount, therefore, for the satisfaction of
remaining decretal amount of maintenance allowance the surety
(petitioner) as well as his property is available; that the petitioner
also moved an application on 17.11.2020 for his discharge being the
surety of judgment debtor (respondent No.5) by maintaining that he
has paid Rs.4,00,000/- for which he stood surety, therefore, he be
discharged being the surety of the judgment debtor (respondent
No.5). Learned Executing Court vide order dated 28.09.2021
allowed his application by declaring that surety (petitioner) is not
responsible to pay any other amount and discharged him from his
liability. Feeling aggrieved, respondents No.2 to 4 assailed said order
through preferring an appeal. The learned Appellate Court vide
judgment/order dated 05.03.2022 allowed the appeal by declaring
that in the light of petitioner’s statement dated 07.10.2017 and his
affidavit dated 11.11.2019 he is responsible for remaining decretal
amount and set aside the order dated 28.09.2021 with direction to the
learned Trial Court to proceed further in accordance with law to
satisfy the decree. Being dissatisfied, petitioner has filed this petition.
3.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and
perused the record with their able assistance
W.P. No.5215 of 2022.
4
4.
It is matter of record that the learned Trial Court decreed the
suit of the respondents No.2 to 4 for recovery of maintenance
allowance and dowry articles in the following terms:
“What has been discussed above, the plaintiff No.1 is entitled to
receive maintenance allowance from the defendant @ Rs.2000/-
per month from the institution of suit till the subsistence of
marriage. While, the plaintiffs No.2 & 3 are also entitled to receive
maintenance allowance @ Rs.2000/- per month from the
institution of suit till they are legally entitled. The plaintiff No.1 is
entitled to recover Rs.200,000/- as alternate price of dowry
articles. Suit of the defendant for restitution of conjugal rights is
dismissed.”
Although, the suit was instituted against husband of
respondent No.2 and father of respondents No.3 & 4 namely
Muhammad Nadeem (respondent No.6) and his father namely
Muhammad Nizam (respondent No.5) but the decree is silent
whether said suit was decreed against both of them and they are
bound to pay the decretal amount jointly and severely or the said
decree is only against respondent No.6.
5.
It is evident from the record that respondent No.6 was sent to
civil prison for a period of one year on 12.11.2019 and after facing
the civil imprisonment he was released from the jail. It is also
evident from the record that respondent No.5 was also arrested twice
for satisfaction of the decree. First time he was released on
submission of surety bond of the petitioner and secondly he was
released by the Court keeping in view his old age by observing that
he was not in easy circumstances to pay the decretal amount.
In view of above, both the judgment debtors were discharged
by the Court from paying the decretal amount.
6.
From perusal of order sheet it appears that in compliance of
non-bailable warrants of arrest, respondent No.5 was arrested and
produced before the Court on 03.11.2015; that he moved an
application on 28.11.2015 for setting aside the ex-parte judgment
and decree dated 29.06.2015 coupled with an application for
suspension of said decree; that learned counsel for the respondents
No.2 to 4 appeared before the Court and made a statement that he
has no objection if the operation of impugned judgment and decree is
suspended and judgment debtor Muhammad Nizam (respondent
W.P. No.5215 of 2022.
5
No.5) be released subject to submission of surety bond in the sum of
Rs.400,000/- with one local surety in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the Court. The learned executing Court in the light of
his statement vide order dated 28.11.2015 suspended the operation of
the impugned judgment and decree and directed to release the
judgment debtor Muhammad Nizam if he submits surety bonds of
Rs.400,000/- with one local surety in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the Court. The petitioner came forward and stood as
surety of said respondent No.5 and submitted his surety bond of
Rs.4,00,000/- on 03.12.2015 in the light of order dated 28.11.2015.
Perusal of the surety bond submitted by the petitioner reflects that
petitioner stood surety with the following undertaking:
"ہی ہک ربوےئ مکح دعاتل انجب واہل مکح و ڈرگی ومرہخ 51۔40۔51 وج ہک وسنمخ وہیکچ ےہ اور دماع
ہیلع ربمن5 اظنم دنی وج ہک دنب وجڈلشی وحاالت ےہ سج یک امضتن/راہیئ اک مکح دعاتل انجب واہل ےس
لیصحت و علض واہڑی اک وہں
وک وہاکچ ےہ۔ ربوےئ مکح دعاتل انجب واہل امضتن انہم دالخ رکواای اجراہ ےہ۔
52 ودل دمحم اربامیہ ذات اراںیئ اسنک کچ ربمن 24/WB
51۔وعسم5د 1ا۔نسحل
یمسم
ومرہخ
م نکہ
اور ربوےئ مکح دعاتل انجب واہل امیتیل 40 الھک روےپ اک امضتن انہم وطبر اضنم شیپ وہرک ھکل رک داتیوہں
اور ارقار رکات وہں ہک ںیم مکح دعاتل انجب واہل اک اپدنب روہں اگ اور اےنپ آپ وک وطبر اضنم شیپ رکات
وہں۔ وصبرت درگی دعاتل وج یھب اکروایئ رکے ارتعاض ہن وہاگ۔ "
In the light of said surety bond, learned Executing court on
29.01.2016 passed the order in following terms.
“As per record, the judgment debtor Nizam in application for
setting aside decree has submitted his surety bond of
Rs.4,00,000/- and he has been released from custody. Now to
come up for payment of decretal amount on 09.02.2016.”
In this way, it appears that the petitioner was only surety for
Rs.4,00,000/- and he submitted the surety bond in the light of
statement of learned counsel for the decree holders and the direction
of learned executing Court.
7.
It is evident from the perusal of record that the application for
setting aside of ex-parte judgment and decree dated 29.06.2015 of
respondent No.5 was dismissed on 16.03.2016 and appeal against it
also met the same fate and dismissed by the learned Appellate Court
vide order dated 26.08.2016 and the writ petition (W.P. No.18033 of
2016) against said orders was dismissed as withdrawn on 29.05.2017.
W.P. No.5215 of 2022.
6
8.
After dismissal of respondent No.5’s application for setting
aside the ex-parte judgment and decree he was again arrested and
sent to jail. He moved an application for his release from the jail and
discharge him from the payment of decretal amount. The learned
Executing Court while deciding his application for his release from
the payment of the decree vide order dated 22.12.2020 observed as
under:
“It further reflects from perusal of record that earlier judgment
debtor Muhammad Nizam was arrested and one Masood-ulHassan stood surety for him and surety has paid Rs.4,00,000/-
(four lac) for satisfaction of the decree. In the given
circumstances, I am of the view that decree to the extent of dowry
articles has been satisfied and further decree was partially
satisfied decreed to the extent of maintenance is also satisfied.
There is nothing on record to show that petitioner/judgment
debtor Muhammad Nizam has sufficient resources to pay the
decretal amount to the decree holder. Petitioner is an old-aged
person, hence, it would not be appropriate to keep him in the civil
prison. Hence, application of the petitioner is hereby accepted.
Judgment debtor Muhammad Nizam is hereby released.”
9.
Said order was assailed by respondents No.2 to 4 and the
learned Appellate Court dismissed their appeal vide judgment/order
dated 30.04.2021 while observing as under:
“Perusal of the record depicts that earlier respondent
No.2/judgment debtor /Muhammad Nazim was arrested during
the proceedings of execution petition and was released on
submission of surety for him namely Masood-ul-Hassan for the
satisfaction of decree. It is admitted thing that Rs.4,00,000/- has
been paid for the partial satisfaction of decree. Now the question
before the Court is that to what extent of the decretal amount
respondent No.2/judgment debtor/Muhammad Nazim is
responsible. In this regard, it is observed that appellant/decree
holder filed a suit for maintenance allowance and dowry articles
against the respondent No.1 Muhammad Nadeem and his
father/respondent No.2/Muhammad Nazim and said suit was
decreed vide judgment & decree dated 29.06.2015 to the extent of
maintenance allowance of plaintiffs and dowry articles amounting
to Rs.200,000/-. It is observed that the judgment and decree is not
clear that it was also passed against the respondent
No.2/Muhammad Nazim regarding maintenance allowance of
plaintiffs while to the extent of decretal amount of dowry articles
i.e. Rs.200,000/- has been paid. The respondent No.2/judgment
debtor/Muhammad Nazim being grandfather of minor plaintiffs in
the presence of father of minor plaintiffs respondent No.1, is not
responsible to pay maintenance allowance of minors because it is
primary responsibility of respondent No.1/judgment debtor being
father to pay the maintenance allowance to his children and in
case of non-payment of maintenance allowance, grandfather is
duty bound to pay the maintenance allowance, if he has sufficient
reasons to pay the same. But in this case, there is nothing on
W.P. No.5215 of 2022.
7
record to show that respondent No.2 has the easy circumstances
to pay the maintenance allowance to his grandchildren.”
Said judgment was not assailed any further, hence, the same
has attained finality. Through said orders, the learned Courts below
discharged respondent No.5 for the satisfaction of the decree.
10. The petitioner failed to pay Rs.4,00,000/- of his surety, hence,
his property was put to auction. In order to stop the auction
proceedings, petitioner appeared before the Court and got recorded
his statement on 07.10.2017 in the following manner:
وک ریمی اجدیئاد 40 ۔ 54 ۔ 51 وہں۔ دقمہم ذہا ںیم ومرہخ وین دم "ایبن ایک ہک ںیم دقمہم ذہا ںیم اضنم
یک رطف ےس ادا ہن وین دم یک تبسن الینم اعم یک اکرروایئ لچ ریہ ےہ۔ آدنئہ اترخی یشیپ رپ زرِ ڈرگی ارگ
ںیم ریمی اجدیئاد الینمِ اعم رکےن رپ وہا وت وطبر اضنم ںیم ادایگیئ اک اپدنب روہں اگ۔ دعم ادایگیئ یک وصرت
وکیئ ارتعاض ہن وہاگ۔"
In the light of his statement auction proceedings was stayed.
11. The petitioner again defaulted to pay the decretal amount,
therefore, his property was again put to auction, then he moved an
application on 11.11.2019 by maintaining that he has already paid
Rs.128,000/- and wants to pay further amount of Rs.50,000/- and
prayed for stay of auction proceedings. In support of his application,
he submitted his affidavit in the following terms:
اظنم اک اضنم وہں 5 وین ربمن ر ہ اونانِ لاال ںیم نم حلل دم ا َ ایبن رکات وہں ہک ارجاء دنم "ہی ہک حلف
زہار روےپ عمج دعاتل 14 اور اکرروایئ ارجاء ںیم الینیم اک مکح وہا ےہ۔ نم حلل ےن ارموزہ غلبم
اجےئ۔ یک الینیم رو عمج رکوا دوں اگ۔ ریمی 55 ۔ 55 ۔ 50 زہار روےپ ومرہخ 14 رکدےی ںیہ اور غلبم
ہی ہک حلفا َ ایبن رکات وہں ہک لایق زرِ ڈرگی یھب ادا رکےن اک اپدنب روہں اگ۔"
In the light of said submission, the learned Executing Court
vide order dated 11.11.2019 stayed the auction proceedings and
adjourned the matter to 12.11.2019. Petitioner submitted further
amount of Rs.50,000/- on the given date.
12. The learned appellate Court keeping in view the petitioner’s
above referred statement dated 07.10.2017 and his affidavit dated
11.11.2019 declared him liable to pay the whole decretal amount
vide impugned order dated 05.03.2022. Whereas, perusal of the
above referred statement and affidavit reflects that the petitioner bind
himself to pay the decretal amount being the ‘surety’ and not given
any fresh surety bond for the satisfaction of whole decree.
W.P. No.5215 of 2022.
8
Admittedly, the petitioner stood surety for Rs.4,00,000/- only and on
07.10.2017 the outstanding decree was also not more than
Rs.4,00,000/-.
13. It is argued on behalf of the respondents No.2 to 4 that this
Court also declared the petitioner is liable to pay the whole decretal
amount while deciding Writ Petition No.11283 of 2019 titled
“Masood ul Hassan V. Judge Family Court & others”. From the
perusal of said order, it appears that the petitioner assailed the order
dated 22.06.2019 of learned Executing Court whereby his property
was put to auction. This Court while dismissing the said writ petition
vide order dated 24.07.2019 observed as under:
“Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel
it is observed that the writ petition is wholly misconceived and
untenable. Undeniably a decree was passed by the Family Court,
execution proceedings started for the enforcement of decree, the
petitioner opted to furnish surety on behalf of the judgmentdebtor and that the judgment-debtor failed to discharge his
liability under the decree. This being so, the learned Judge
Family Court was legally justified to proceed against the surety
who had committed and undertaken to satisfy the claim of decreeholder in the event of default on the part of judgment debtor.
Undeniably, the judgment-debtor had failed to pay off the entire
decretal amount and was not willing to satisfy the decree
completely in result; the learned Judge Family Court was legally
justified to proceed against the surety. Even otherwise, having
furnished the surety to pay off the liability of judgment-debtor,
the petitioner could not be allowed to find fault with order or to
extend lame excuses to save his skin. The order for filing of the
schedule for auction of the property of the surety and for its
auction, in the given circumstances, does not suffer from any
error of law. The order being interlocutory, no appeal being
competent, the learned Addl. District Judge rightly declined
interference.”
From the perusal of the above observation, it is clear that this
Court only settled that in case of non-payment of decretal amount by
the judgment debtor, the surety would responsible and in case of
default on the part of surety, his property would be liable to be
auctioned for the satisfaction of the decree. The only question before
this Court was that whether the property of surety can be auctioned
or not. A general observation was given by the Court and it was not
decided to what extent the present petitioner/surety would be
responsible, as this was not a fact in issue before the Court at that
time.
W.P. No.5215 of 2022.
9
14. From the perusal of the decree, it appears that no specific
decree has been passed against respondent No.5. Said decree was
consisting upon two parts i.e. a decree for recovery of maintenance
allowance and a decree for recover of dowry articles. A decree for
maintenance allowance also consisted upon two portions as it was
passed in favour of respondent No.2/plaintiff No.1 wife of the
respondent No.6 and in favour of respondents No.3 & 4 minors
children of respondent No.6. Respondent No.5 is grandfather of the
minors and he can be bound only to the extent of maintenance of the
minors being their grandfather, if he has easy circumstances to pay
the same. Therefore, when the Courts have let off/released
respondent No.5 Muhammad Nizam from the responsibility of
satisfying the decree, then how his surety is responsible to satisfy the
same.
15. A surety’s liability is co-extensive with that of the judgment
debtor and he was as much bound by his undertaking as was the
judgment debtor, and both were collectively and severely liable to
make payment to the decree holder. While construing the tenure and
extent of surety bond, the words and recitals of the surety bond must
be taken into consideration to gather the intention of the executant of
said bond and the bond must be strictly construed. A surety is liable
only upto the extent to which he is clearly bound.
16. Through the order dated 28.11.2015 the learned executing
Court directed respondent No.5 to submit surety bond of
Rs.400,000/- with one local surety in the like amount and in
compliance of said order, the petitioner submitted surety bond of
Rs.400,000/- on 03.12.2015 and vide order dated 29.01.2016 the
learned executing Court on submission of surety bond of
Rs.400,000/- released respondent No.5 which facts clearly
established that the petitioner was stood surety only of Rs.400,000/-.
Contract of surety had provided that maximum he was liable to the
tune of Rs.400,000/-. Orders of learned executing Court did not find
mentioned that the respondent No.5 would arrange a surety for the
payment of the entire decretal amount. Petitioner stood surety
W.P. No.5215 of 2022.
10
amounting to Rs.400,000/- only, which he has paid before the
learned Executing Court on different occasions as detailed in his
application to discharge him from the liability as surety. Said fact
was not denied by respondents No.2 to 4. In these circumstances, the
petitioner has satisfied the amount for which he stood surety.
17. For the foregoing reasons, learned Appellate Court has erred
in law while allowing appeal of respondents No.2 to 4 and
dismissing the application of the petitioner. Hence, by accepting this
petition impugned order passed by the learned appellate Court dated
05.03.2022 is set-aside and order dated 28.09.2021 passed by the
learned Executing Court is restored.
(AHMAD NADEEM ARSHAD)
JUDGE.
APPROVED FOR REPORTING.
JUDGE.