2016 PLD 622 Lahore High Court Execution of Decree, Ss. 13 & 5, Sched—Maintenance allowance—GGrandfather liability of—Execution petition—Procedure—Execution of a decree against a person who was not party to the suit—Scope—Minors filed suit for maintenance allowance against their father which was decreed—Judgment debtor (father) was sent to civil prison till the satisfaction of decree and property belonging to the grandfather was ordered to be attached—Contention of grandfather was that he was not party to the suit and decree could not be executed against him—Validity—Liability of grandfather to maintain his grandchildren would start when father was poor and infirm and mother was also not in a position to provide maintenance to her children,
Such liability of grandfather was dependent upon the fact that he was in easy circumstances—If father and mother were alive then grandfather could not be held responsible for maintenance of his grandchildren unless it was first determined that he was in easy circumstances—Family Court was bound to first adjudicate and determine such fact which could not be done unless he was a party to the suit having fair opportunity to explain his status and position—No decree could be executed against a person who was not a party to the proceedings,
Executing court could not go beyond the decree—Decree passed by the Family Court would remain in field to the extent of actual judgment-debtor even after suffering civil prison unless it was satisfied—Process of execution of decree could not shift towards the grandfather only on account of mere fact that judgment-debtor had failed to discharge his liability under the decree–Family Court could adopt the procedure provided in Civil Procedure Code, 1908 for execution of its decree—Judgment-debtor could be sent to civil prison for one year–Impugned order for attachment of property of grandfather was un-warranted by law which was declared illegal and unlawful—Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.