Muhammad Hasham Vs Malik Jehanzaib etc

PESHAWAR HIGH COURT, PESHAWAR

(JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT)

Writ Petition No. 2012-P/2025

Mohammad Hasham

....Petitioner(s).

Versus Malik Jehanzeb etc.

....Respondent(s).

For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Fida Gul, Advocate.

For the Respondent(s): M/s Waqar Orakzai, AAG, Sawar Khan, Mohammad Masoom Shah and Ihsan Ullah, Advocates.

Date of Hearing: 08.10.2025

JUDGMENT

WIQAR AHMAD, J.- Through this single judgment this court proposes to decide this and connected WP No. 3389- P/2025 as a common question of law and fact are involved.

2.The dispute in the present case arose from a conflict over the distribution of coal mine shares among partners.

Respondent, Malik Jahanzeb, asserted that in 2006, eight partners had jointly initiated coal mining operations.

Subsequently, four of the partners withdrew from the venture, leaving only four to continue the mining partnership, namely: (1) Malik Jahanzeb son of Malik Haya

Gul, resident of Dalil Khel, Akhorwal, Kohat; (2) Zahir Shah son of Pir Muhammad; (3) Muhammad Hashim son of Muhammad Usman, resident of Dara Akhorwal, Kohat; and

(4)Muhammad Kamal son of Merum Khan of Pirwal Khel, Akhorwal, Kohat. According to Malik Jehanzeb, the petitioner unlawfully denied him his due share of the coal mine income and subsequently ousted him from the partnership by force. In order to resolve the matter, the respondent Malik Jehanzeb moved an application dated 03.09.2015 before the then Assistant Political Agent (“APA”), Frontier Region (FR) Kohat. The APA, acting under Section 8 of the Frontier Crimes Regulation (FCR), referred the matter for adjudication to a Jirga (Council of Elders) comprising Malik Nadir Khan (Pirwal Khel, Akhorwal), Malik Rasool Khan (Gadia Khel, Akhorwal), and Malik Asmat Khan (Pirwal Khel, Akhorwal). The Jirga proceeded with its inquiry, recorded written statements of both sides, and ultimately rendered a unanimous award on 22.03.2016. Said award was duly confirmed by APA, FR Kohat through order dated 28.03.2016. As per the Jirga’s verdict, the respondent was required either to administer oath to the petitioner affirming that his father had relinquished his share in 2007 or to accept the decision rendered by the Coal Mines Association in September 2015.

Instead of implementing the decree within the prescribed

timeframe, the matter lingered without execution for reasons unexplained. Consequently, the respondent filed a review application on 22.03.2018. During pendency of that application, Senior Political Moharrir (“SPM”) submitted a report dated 19.04.2018, stating that said date had been fixed for administration of oath to the petitioner. However, respondent sought additional time on that very day to deliberate upon his choice between the two options provided in the Jirga award, which request was declined.

The SPM thus opined that since the respondent had failed to administer oath to the petitioners, his claim stood unsubstantiated. Acting upon this report, the APA, FR Kohat endorsed the findings and dismissed the respondent’s case vide order dated 19.04.2018. Aggrieved by said decision, respondents preferred an appeal on 03.05.2018 challenging the order of the APA, FR Kohat. Following the 25th Constitutional Amendment, which abolished the FATA-FR administrative structure, the appeal was transferred to the District Judge, Kohat. Learned District Judge, Kohat, vide order dated 15.02.2020, set aside the impugned order of APA, FR Kohat, and remanded the matter to learned Senior Civil Judge, Kohat, for fresh adjudication. Dissatisfied, the petitioners assailed said order through Writ Petition No. 217-P/2020 before this Court.

This Court, vide judgment dated 20.04.2020, directed

learned Senior Civil Judge, Kohat, to treat the matter as an execution petition for enforcement of the decree dated 28.03.2016. While proceedings before the civil court were still pending, a Larger Bench of this Court, through its judgment dated 02.12.2022 in Writ Petition No. 2337- P/2019, ruled that certain categories of cases pending adjudication under the repealed FCR regime should be remitted to the respective appellate forums for decision in accordance with the provisions of repealed law.

Consequently, the appeal filed by respondent against order dated 19.4.2018 of APA, after being treated as a similar matter, was transmitted back to Commissioner, FCR Kohat Division by the District Judge, Kohat, vide order dated 23.11.2023. The Commissioner, FCR Kohat vide order dated 27.2.2025 partially accepted the appeal filed by respondent thereby setting aside order/report dated 19.4.2018. The case was remanded back to Assistant Commissioner, Darra Sub Division Kohat for proper implementation of Jirga Award dated 22.3.2016. Feeling aggrieved from order dated 27.2.2025, petitioners has filed instant writ petition.

3.Brief facts, according to contents of connected Writ Petition No. 3389-P/2025, are that petitioner, a businessman engaged in coal mining under the name Hasbum Coal Company at Akhurwal Dara Adam Khel,

along with respondents No. 4 and 5, had been granted a coal mining lease by the Government on 22.07.2010. The brother and special attorney of respondent No. 4, Hayat Khan, had earlier supported the petitioner’s stance during the Jirga proceedings. Respondents No. 4 and 5 were proforma respondents. Respondent No. 3, Jehanzaib, was the son of late Haya Gull. In 2006, late Haya Gull along with late Meeran Khan (father of the petitioner), respondent No. 4 (Malik Hashim), late Nasrullah (brother of respondent No. 5, Zahir Shah), Meer Badshah, Zia ur Rehman, Noor Maath, and Tayyab had entered a joint coal mining venture at Akhurwal, formalized through an Iqrar-nama dated 23 June 2006. During operations, the local tribe, Qaum Akhurwal, protested against mining in their communal land, leading to unrest. Amidst this uprising, late Haya Gull abandoned the business, statedly breached the Iqrar-nama, and assumed leadership of the Qaum’s opposition to mining. In January 2007, he unilaterally terminated the business agreement, causing severe financial and personal losses to the petitioner’s father and others. Following his departure, late Meeran Khan lawfully took over Haya Gull’s share with the consent of remaining partners and in accordance with local rewaj and customs. Other partners Tayyab, Noor Maath, Meer Badshah, and Zia ur Rehman, later sold their shares to late Meeran Khan and respondent

No. 4 due to continued unrest, dissolving the original partnership. After the turmoil subsided, mining resumed peacefully. In 2015, nearly a decade later, respondent No. 3 unexpectedly approached the Coal Mines Association, lodging a complaint against the petitioner and demanding a share in the mine. The petitioner, though reluctantly and in protest, participated in the ensuing Jirga for the sake of maintaining peace. Both parties gave waak to the Jirga members. The Jirga passed its verdict, which the petitioner accepted under protest, but respondent No. 3 who had initiated the Jirga refused to abide by it. Subsequently, respondent No. 3 filed multiple complaints before the APA Kohat (respondent No. 2) from May to November 2015, each time altering his claims. The APA declared the matter cognizable under FCR and constituted a Jirga comprising Malik Nadir Khan, Malik Rasool Khan, and Malik Asmat Ullah. Both parties consented to the Jirga and agreed to be bound by its verdict. The Jirga, after due proceedings, announced its decision, which was endorsed by the APA on 28.03.2016. Under the verdict, respondent No. 3 was given two options: (a) to administer an oath affirming that his father had relinquished his share in 2007, or (b) to accept the earlier Jirga award of the Coal Mine Association. He was required to opt within ten days. On 06.04.2016, respondent No. 3 chose option (a), and applications were

filed on 12.04.2016 and 30.05.2016 confirming willingness to administer oaths. The Jirga began oath proceedings but, due to mutual consent, postponed them on 21.11.2016.

Later, the petitioner and respondents No. 4 and 5 applied on 02.03.2018 to resume the oath process, and respondent No.

3 followed suit on 18.04.2018. When the Jirga reconvened on 19.04.2018, respondent No. 3 again failed to take the oath. The Jirga’s report stated that the petitioner and others were ready, but respondent No. 3’s failure nullified his claim. The APA endorsed this report and dismissed the case. Respondent No. 3 appealed to the Commissioner.

Following the 25th Constitutional Amendment, the appeal was transferred to the District Judge Kohat, who on 15.02.2020 allowed the appeal. The petitioner and proforma respondents filed Revision No. 217-P/2020 before this Court, which on 20.04.2020 modified the order, setting aside the findings except the part relating to the Jirga report dated 19.04.2018, and directed that the decree dated 28.03.2016 be executed as a valid decree. Subsequently, the Senior Civil Judge passed an order on 22.06.2020, which was challenged through RFA No. 263-P/2020. This Court again set aside the impugned order, clarifying that the decree of 28.03.2016 was a preliminary one and that the oath proceedings must be completed before rendering a final decree. Respondent No. 3 withdrawn his

CPLA from Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan and thus both the judgments of this court attained finality. Both parties thereafter filed execution petitions and objections.

Meanwhile, in light of the Larger Bench judgment of 02.12.2022 in Suhbat Khan v. Kandi Barami Tappa Karna Khel, a scrutiny committee recommended transferring pending FCR-based cases back to competent forums.

Consequently, the District Judge Kohat, through order dated 23.11.2023, remitted the present matter to the respective APA/AC Kohat. Respondent No. 1, upon taking cognizance, heard arguments multiple times and on 27-02- 2025 passed the impugned order statedly contrary to law, evidence, rewaj, and local customs. Taking advantage of this, respondent No. 3 filed a fresh execution petition exceeding the scope of the original Jirga decree. The petitioner challenged this before the FATA Tribunal, which initially suspended the impugned order on 20.03.2025.

However, despite being informed of related writ proceedings (W.P. No. 2012-P/2025) and the High Court’s suspension order dated 03.04.2025, the Tribunal recalled its own suspension order on 24.04.2025. Subsequently, respondent No. 3, along with respondents No. 9, 10, and 11, despite being aware of the High Court’s orders, unlawfully attacked the disputed coal mine, intimidating staff, damaging property, and stealing coal. The petitioner lodged

a roznamcha entry No. 04 dated 09-05-2025 at the concerned police station against them for their illegal acts committed in defiance of court orders. Feeling aggrieved from the order dated 24.4.2025 passed by FATA Tribunal and judgment dated 27.2.2025, has filed instant petition.

4.Arguments heard and record perused.

5.Perusal of record reveal that dispute between the parties had attained finality where this court while rendering its judgment dated 20.4.2020 in Civil Revision Number 417-P/2020 had decided as follows;

“6. The record reveals that it was the respondent himself who had filed execution petition before the learned Assistant Political Agent for execution of the decree dated 28.3.2016, which was entrusted by learned APA to the elders/Jirg of the area for execution but the Jirga instead of execution of the decree, recommended dismissal of decree passed in favour of respondent. Apparently such like Executing Court or forum has no jurisdiction to set aside a decree rendered by a competent Court of law therefore, the findings of learned appellate Court to that extent is based on proper appreciation of law, however, the impugned decree dated 28.3.2016 was not challenged within the prescribed period of limitation of 30 days, which had attained finality and the learned appellate Court had got no jurisdiction to set aside a decree passed by a competent Court of law before 25 Constitutional amendment, which had never challenged by any party therein in any competent Court of law under the provisions of FCR. As such, this civil revision petition is partially allowed. the impugned judgment is modified to the extent that the report of Jirga dated 19.4.2018 is rightly set aside by the learned appellate Court while rest of his findings are set aside. The case is remanded to learned Senior Civil Judge concerned to register the case as an

execution petition and the decree dated 28.3.2016 be executed accordingly as it had rendered by a competent Court of low in that regard.”

Said judgment had attained finality and it was clearly bearing directions that the execution petition of the petitioner should be proceeded before the civil court. the proceedings were misdirected when learned District Judge, Kohat established a scrutiny committee in pursuance of an Hon’ble three member larger bench judgment of this Court dated 02.12.2022 passed in case of Suhbat Khan and others .vs. Kandi Barami Tappa Karna Khel, Malik Din Khel (bearing WP No. 2337-P/2019), and the committee without realizing that in this case this court had passed a specific order that the execution proceedings should be transferred to the civil court, recommended the case (alongwith large number of other cases) to be transferred to the Court of Commissioner FCR concerned and said recommendations were lateron acted upon and the matter was transferred to the Commissioner FCR for treating the appeal as pending before him. The Commissioner FCR then further remanded the matter to Assistant Commissioner (“AC”) Darra Sub- Division Kohat for implementation of Jirga award dated 22.3.2016. Feeling aggrieved petitioner has filed WP No.

2012-P/2025 with the following prayer;

“IT IS THEREFORE HUMBLY

PRAYED that upon acceptance of this Writ Petition, the proceedings initiated by the learned District Judge, Kohat, transferring

the matter to the AC (TSD) Darra Kohat and subsequently to the Worthy Commissioner, Kohat Division, be declared illegal, without jurisdiction, and set aside. The impugned judgment/order dated 27-02-2025, issued under repealed FCR laws, is in clear violation of this Hon'ble Court's judgments in W.P. No. 2337-P/2019 and W.P. No. 4555- P/2024, as well as PLD 2020 SC 362 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. It is further prayed that the matter be remanded to the learned Executing Court, Kohat, for completion of proceedings strictly in accordance with the Jirga Award dated 22- 09-2016, its confirmation by the then APA Darra FR Kohat on 28-03-2016, and this Hon'ble Court's judgments in CR No. 217- P/2020 (dated 20-04-2020) and RFA No. 263- P/2020 (dated 21-12-2020). A specific timeframe may kindly be prescribed for the completion of the long-pending oath-taking proceedings, ensuring justice is served. Any other relief which is not specifically asked for may also be granted in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondents.”

It is important to be noted that he had also challenged said decision before the FATA Tribunal which was pending therein and an order of suspension of the proceedings was made on 20.3.2025. Same order was subsequently recalled by the tribunal on 24.4.2025 and feeling aggrieved thereof (as well as implementation proceedings before the APA), petitioner has filed WP No. 3389-P/2025 with the following prayer;

It is most humbly prayed that on the acceptance of the instant petition:

“1. The impugned order passed by the learned FATA Tribunal, on 24th April, 2025 may graciously be set aside, declared as illegal, void ab inito, against the law and

facts, evidence, law, rewaj, custom, traditions.

2.It is further prayed that on acceptance of instant petition implementation proceedings initiated, on basis of the impugned order dated: 27th February, 2025 before the learned Assistant Political Agent/Assistant Commissioner FCR, Kohat may also be declared as null and void & ulta-vires to law and Judgments of High Court Dated: 20th April, 2020 & 21st December, 2020 in Civil Revision No. 217-P/2020 & RFA# 263-

P/2020.

3.Initiation of contempt of Court proceedings against Respondent No.3 (Malik Jehanzaib), Respondent No.9 (Bashir s/o Malik Jehanzaib), Respondent No.10 (Rehmat s/o Malik Jehanzaib) & Respondent No.11 Said Kamal s/o of Malik Haya Gul real brother of Malik Jehanzaib) for illegally, unlawfully violating order dated: 03rd April, 2025 passed in writ petition No. 2012-P/2025 titled Muhammad Hashim -Versus- Malik Jehanzaib & others" by unlawfully, illegally attacking the disputed mine, physically assaulting the driver & care taker of the petitioner & also damaging the property of the petitioner in the mine during the attack, on 09th May,

4.Any other relief not specifically prayed for, but relevant in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted to the petitioner.”

6.As stated earlier the proceedings were misdirected when a committee constituted by learned District Judge Kohat (for scrutiny of all the pending cases) had also recommended transfer of the case in hand and same was transferred accordingly. While doing so, learned District Judge, Kohat had been feeling himself bound by ratio of judgment dated 2.12.2022 passed by this Court in case of

Suhbat Khan ( supra) where Hon’ble three members bench of this court had passed the following directions;

“29. In view of the above, we have reached at the conclusion that notwithstanding the omission of Article 247 ibid as a result whereof the FCR also stood repealed the legal 21 proceedings or remedy in respect of any such a right would continue under the legal dispensation provided under FCR except the proceedings of jirga/Council of Elders in the same mode and manner as provided under the repealed FCR. Hence, we dispose of the instant petition and the connected matters in the following manner.

i. The case of the first category shall be transferred to the FATA Tribunal which was established under Section 55-A of the FCR and in this regard, the Provincial Government shall constitute and notify FATA Tribunal for adjudication of the said cases as well as other cases which would arise out of the judgment of the Commissioner or other fora as stated in this judgment.

ii. The case of second category i.e. Cr.A. No. 401-P/2019 titled "Khiyal Gul vs. Inzar Gul and another" shall also be transferred to the Commissioner Kohat Division Kohat for adjudication under FCR and in this regard, the Provincial Government will also notify the office of Commissioner under the enabling provision of FCR.

iii. The third category of cases shall be placed before the respective Benches for determination on its own merits. If deemed essential, the respective Bench may refer the case/proceedings to the District Public Prosecutor of the respective Districts/merged area, who will thoroughly examine the record, may refer the case for reinvestigation to the concerned Police Station with direction to reinvestigate the matter and thereafter submit a complete challan before the competent court of law

under Section 173 of Criminal Procedure Code.

iv. The cases relating to civil disputes which did not culminate into final judgment, were pending before the Political Agents, and were transferred to the regular courts in view of Reference No 01-P/2019 decided on 20.03.2019 shall remain pending with the respective Courts. However, the judgments/decree passed by the District Judges/Additional District 22 Judges in the fourth category of the cases are accordingly set aside and the appeals which were transferred to the said Courts will be sent back to the relevant forum (Commissioner FCR) for adjudication under the FCR.”

While transferring the case, learned District Judge, Kohat could not realize that in this particular case there was a specific judgment of this court wereunder the matter had been finalized and same judgment had attained finality.

Those proceedings could not be deemed to have been reopened or judgment of this court set aside on the basis of the subsequent decision of this court dated 2.12.2022 in the case of Suhbat Khan (supra). This Court while giving its judgment in the case of Suhbat Khan (supra) had clearly held that where this court had passed final judgment in the cases arising from FATA (cases which had been entertained in pursuance to earlier judgment of this court dated 20.3.2019 passed in Reference No.01-P/2019) same proceedings and final judgments would be treated as past and closed transactions and would not be reopened.

Relevant observations from said judgment are also reproduced below for ready reference;

“Similarly, pursuant to the judgment of this Court in Reference No. 01-P/2019 dated 20.03.2019, if any proceeding has culminated into final judgment passed by this Court cannot be re-opened under the doctrine of past & closed transaction. Furthermore, if pursuant to the aforesaid judgment of this Court, any case was remanded to the regular trial court by this Court and the regular trial court has recorded verdict in the same and the said judgment is impugned before this Court through any proceedings, it would be the appropriate Bench of this Court to decide the same without being prejudiced by the findings in this case.”

Since the order of transfer of learned District Judge, Kohat was running contrary to final judgment of this Court (which had also attained finality) the superstructure built thereon including order dated 27.2.2025 of the Commissioner Kohat (impugned) as well as all the orders passed by APA in implementation and interim orders passed by the FCR Tribunal have all been without jurisdiction, ultra vires, void and ineffective. All such proceedings were also running contrary to law after merger of FATA in the province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa by way of 25th Constitutional Amendment and repeal of FCR. The forums of Asstt:

Commissioner, Commissioner FCR and FATA Tribunal were having no jurisdiction in the matter to have passed any order in respect of the cases in hand. Jurisdiction of commissioner FCR had only been continuing under repealed FCR as held by this court in its judgment of this court dated 02.12.2022 in Suhbat Khan case (supra) to the extent of matters that had been pending on the day of repeal of FCR and not finalized by judgment of this court or

judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan (separately passed). Jurisdiction of the original forum of APA could not be deemed to have been given any protection, continuity or existence (under the repealed FCR) in any of the categories of cases mentioned in the case of Suhbat Khan (reproduced above). The Assistant Commissioners now posted and working in FATA or merged area had got no jurisdiction either under repealed FCR or any other law to continue with any judicial proceedings under the repealed FCR. Such officers cannot be deemed to be successors of the office of Assistant Political Agent under the repealed FCR. Such succession is not available under any legal instrument. This court while giving its judgment in case of Syeda Humaira Sultana vs. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary and 3 others reported as 2021 PLC (C.S.) 1074 [Peshawar High Court (Mingora Bench)], has already clarified the matter of claimed succession of the authorities that stood posted and working in merged District of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and the authorities that had earlier been established and existing under the repealed FCR in former FATA. In said judgment it was categorically held;”

“13. Besides the office of Political Agent mainly derived its existence and authority from the Frontier Crimes Regulation, 1901. With repeal of Article 247 from the Constitution, the said Regulation shall be deemed to have been repealed thereby. With the unqualified repeal, the office of Political Agent has seized to exist. No other office or officer can claim any legacy of the said office as

no such law provides for the same. In other words, the office of Political Agent has been mummified and laid to rest in the cemetery of history along with all his belongings leaving no legacy for anyone else to utilize. The Deputy Commissioner, Bajaur is therefore not found to be the successor of Political Agent and he has never been a Chairman of the BOD nor had been substituted as member of the BOG or the School Management Board. Beside the Political Agent, other members of the BOD and BOG have also lost its existence with the promulgation of Act No. XXXVII of 2018 i.e. 25th Constitutional amendment (hereinafter referred to as the 'amending Act').”

7.Additionally the Hon’ble three members bench of this court while giving its judgment in case of Suhbat Khan (supra) had also passed specific directions for re- establishment of the offices of Commissioner FCR and FATA Tribunal under the repealed FCR for being conscious of the fact that such forums had lost its existence and had to be reincarnated. While passing such directions for limited purposes of deciding the pending appeals, revisions or review cases, the forum of APA has not been ordered to be revived by this court and therefore, same forum is no more existing. Same cannot be revived by any executive order or other instruments. Same cannot be revived by an order of remand made by the existing commissioner FCR or FATA Tribunal. If any fresh proceedings are to be conducted that has to be conducted by civil courts working under regular laws of the country. In the judgment of Suhbat Khan’s case (supra) the matter of assumption of jurisdiction and conduct of proceedings in the original forum of APA or PA had also been clarified in para-26 in the following manner.

26.In the present case, we have to yet draw a distinction between the matters which though were initiated prior to the 25th amendment in the Constitution, omitting Article 247 ibid under the FCR but had not culminated into the final judgment i.e. to say when any inquiry or trial in the trifurcated system had commenced, the jirga was constituted, final which had inquired the matter, however, a judgment/order was not announced by the Political Agent/Deputy Commissioner. Essentially, under the erstwhile dispensation any matter whether civil or criminal was to be inquired and investigated by a jirga/Council of Elders, and the Political Agent or Deputy Commissioner had very less jurisdiction to interfere in the findings of the jirga as the said findings could not be substituted by the Deputy Commissioner rather if he was of the opinion that the matter requires further probe he could send back it to the jirga for further probe. It was held by the Apex Court in the case of National Commission on the status of women vs. Government of Pakistan through Secretary Law and Justice (PLD 2019 SC 218) referred above that the manner in which jirga/panchayat functions in any system is violative of Articles 4, 8, 10-A, 25 and 175(3) of the Constitution. Therefore, any system which provides for resolution of the matter through jirga system after pronouncement of the judgment of the Apex Court ibid (16.01.2019) cannot be allowed to further proceed with the matter more particularly in the circumstances when the law of the land establishing a normal investigation/inquiry/trial stands extended to the erstwhile FATA.”

In para-25 of judgment (ibid)it had also been clarified that the repealed law could only be kept continued under Article 268 of the Constitution, 1973 in respect of right of appeal or revision.

8.Learned counsel for respondents have also raised a plea of existence of alternate forum by stating that petitioners have already filed a revision petition before

FATA Tribunal and that said forum should be allowed to decide the matter. Such plea of learned counsel representing respondents was found not possessing any force. It has already clarified that in the case in hand neither Assistant Commissioner nor Commissioner FRC or FATA Tribunal were having any jurisdiction. All the impugned orders were without jurisdiction and lawful authority. Even the act of entertaining the revision petition was without jurisdiction and passing of the interim orders therein by the Tribunal were also suffering from jurisdictional defects. The remedy of filing revision petition before the Tribunal was not available in the case in hand, and same cannot be treated as an alternate remedy for the purpose of creating any bar in way of petitioners in filing instant constitutional petitions.

9.In light of what has been discussed above both the writ petitions are allowed and as a result thereof order of transfer of District Judge, Kohat dated 23.11.2023 as well as all subsequent proceedings conducted and orders passed including order dated 27.2.2025 of Commissioner Kohat Division and impugned orders of APA as well as order of FATA Tribunal in question (impugned herein) are set aside and as a result thereof execution proceedings earlier pending before the civil court Kohat ( before its transfer vide order of District Judge, Kohat) is resurrected and restored. Said file if physically transferred shall be

retransferred by AC or Commissioner FCR concerned to the Court of District Judge, Kohat who shall assign it to the competent civil Court, for further proceedings in accordance with our judgment dated 20.4.2020 in Civil Revision No. 217-P/2020.

Announced on;

08th of October, 2025 *Zarshad* - Sd/-

JUDGE

- Sd/-

JUDGE

(DB)Hon’ble Mr. Justice Syed Arshad Ali & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Wiqar Ahmad