Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 354 of 1967, decided on 12th October 1967.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore dated the 10th May 1967, in Writ Petition No. 2818/R of 1963).
(1962), Art. 98‑Status quo ordered pending writ proceeding‑Petitioner in violation of order entering into transaction and selling away disputed land to third party Conduct of petitioner not only amounted to interference with due course of justice but contumacious of Court‑Petition, held, rightly dismissed by High Court on this sole ground.
Muhammad Siddiq, Senior Attorney for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 12th October 1967.
‑The dispute in this case is with respect to allotment of agricultural lands in village Rana Wahan in the district of Multan.
The petitioner Zaitoon moved a writ petition in the High Court against the orders of the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner. A learned Single Judge while admitting the petition on 28‑11‑63 ordered at the instance of the petitioner maintenance of status quo till its disposal. On 24‑10‑63 the petitioner in violation of the above stay order sold by a registered deed the disputed land to one, Muhammad Luqman. The said fact was brought to the notice of the Court at the time of hearing of the petition and the learned Judges while dismissing the petition observed :‑
"This is an act of extreme highhandedness and the petitioner has disentitled herself to any discretionary relief from this Court . . . . . We, therefore, do not go into the detailed facts of the case and dismiss the petition on this ground."
Mr. Siddiq, the Senior Attorney, has found it difficult to support her action. Her conduct really amounted to interference with due course of justice in a pending proceedings. She must consider herself lucky that proceedings in contempt were not drawn against her.
In our opinion, the High Court on the above facts was full justified in refusing to enter into the merit of the case and it dismissing her petition.
The purchaser is petitioner No. 2 in this petition and this Court has given him permission to appear at the hearing of the petition subject to all just exceptions.
Mr. Siddiq has contended that the purchaser should not be penalised for the conduct of the vendor Mst. Zaitoon.
He was not a party to the writ petition and as such he has no locus standi to challenge the order of the High Court. He pur chased the disputed property at his own peril and he therefore must seek his relief elsewhere and not in these proceedings.
This petition is accordingly dismissed.
Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer