Government Cannot File Execution Objections Without Depositing Decretal Amount.
 |
| Pld 2026 sc 49 |
ایگزیکیوشن میں رقم جمع کرائے بغیر سرکاری محکمہ اعتراض نہیں کر سکتا
🔹 پس منظر
🔹 سپریم کورٹ کا مؤقف
📌 نتیجتاً
Must read judgment.
PLD 2026 Supreme Court 49
Present: Salahuddin Panhwar and Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb, JJ
DIRECTOR GENERAL (HQS) CIVIL WORKS ORGANIZATION (CWO), RAWALPINDI through representative ---Petitioner
Versus
Syed WALI SHAH and others-Respondents
Civil Petition No. 1356 of 2025, decided on 17th October, 2025.
A/2025) (On appeal against the judgment dated 24.02.2025 passed by the Peshawar High Court, Abbottabad Bench in F.A.O. No. 01-
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---
amount or -O. XXVII, R.8-A. O.XXI, R.23-A, O.XLI, Rr. 5, 6 & S. 47-Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894), Ss.18, 30 & 31--Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)---Respondents land acquired---Compensation enhanced in favour of land owners-Execution application filed... Government Acqu Acquiring agency (judgment debtor) filing objections-Objections filed without depositing the decretal amo furnishing security-Effect and legality-Competency, consideration and maintainability of objections before the executing court---Scope Facts in brevity were that the land belonging to the respondents (land owners) was acquired for defence purposes under an award, after which the reference court enhanced the compensation and subsequently High Court upheld the enhancement-During execution the executing court verified the relevant revenue record including goshwaras, naqsha-e-tajwizi, khana-e-malkiat, khana-e-kasht and acquaintance roll and upheld ance roll and upheld respondents' entitlement and dismisse dismissed the department's objections for non-compliance with Order XXI, Rule 23-A, C.P.C., which order was then affirmed by the High Court-The legal issue was 'whether a government department, as judgment-debtor, could maintain objections in execution without depositing the decretal amount or furnishing security, and whether Order XXVII, Rule 8-A, C.P.C. provided any exemption from the mandatory precondition under Order XXI, Rule 23-A, C.P.C."?--Held: Order XXI, Rule 23-A, C.P.C. squarely governed objections by a judgment-debtor in execution and stipulated a jurisdictional precondition that, in the case of a money decree, the judgment-debtor must either deposit the decretal amount in court or furnish security for its payment, and in the case of any other ther decree must furnish security for due performance-Unless that condition is met, the court could not consider the objection-The petitioner did not deposit the decretal amount nor did it furnish security-The executing court and the High Court were therefore correct to treat the objections as not maintainable-Order XXVII. Rule 8-A, C.P.C. concerned exemption from furnishing security in specified situations where Government or a public officer was a party and tied to stays in appellate proceedings under Order XLI, Rules 5 & 6, C.P.C. and it did not override, qualify or dilute the mandatory precondition in execution envisaged by Order XXI, Rule 23-A, C.P.C.--The High Court rightly rejected reliance on Order XXVII, Rule 8-A at the execution stage under section 47, C.PC-Execution questions arising between the parties as to discharge or satisfaction of the decree lay before the executing court under section 47, C.P.C.-Here, that court exercised its jurisdiction, tested ownership and entitlement on the revenue record, and rejected the objections-Those concurrent findings, affirmed by the High Court, disclosed no misreading or non-reading of material, no jurisdictional defect, and no perversity occasioning miscarriage of justice to warrant interference in leave jurisdiction under Article 185(3)-For completeness, while deposits in land acquisition matters were contemplated by section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in specified circumstances, the immediate bar to entertaining the petitioner's objections flew from Order XXL. Rule 23-A. C.P.C. Without deposit of the decretal amount or furnishing security, the objections could not be considered-No illegality was pointed out in the impugned judgment warranting interference by the Supreme Court-Leave was declined and the petition was dismissed, in circumstances.
Najm Qureshi v. Chase Manhattan Bank (now MCBI 2015 SCMR 1461: Muhammad Sadiq v. WAPDA PLD 2003 SC 290: Happy Family Associates v. Pakistan International Trading Co. PLD 2006 SC 226 and Nadeem Akhtar Tabasum v. MCB 2014 SCMR 1371 rel. Imran Ahmed Malik, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner (through video link from Lahore)
Respondents not represented.
Assistance Muhammad Subhan Malik, (Judicial Law Clerk).