Sole property of the petitioner cannot be attached by the learned executing court.

3. It is mainly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that any order against a person who is not party to the proceedings is not executable against him. He has placed reliance on 2006 SCMR 913. He submits that the attached property is under the exclusive ownership and possession of the petitioner and the judgment-debtor has no concern with this property. He further contends that the petitioner never stood guarantor of the judgment debtor during the proceedings and in such circumstances the sole property of the petitioner cannot be attached by the learned executing court. He lastly contends that the impugned orders dated 16.10.2014 and 19.02.2015 passed by the learned lower courts are liable to be set aside. On the other hand learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 4 has supported the impugned orders. He also relied upon case law titled as “Sultan Ahmad v. Judge Family Court and 5 others” (PLD 2012 Lahore 148).

Part of Judgment of
Lahore High Court
WP- Family Law
11914-15

2015 LHC 6866