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 Appeal No. 58 of 1974, decided on 15th March 1977.
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 18‑2‑1974 in F. A. O. No. 1.57 of 1973).
--‑‑ Art. 185(3)‑Statua quo, maintenance of‑Three years gone by since interim order maintaining status quo passed by High Court and civil revision still pending ‑ Supreme Court instead of dealing with propriety or legality of interim order considering it more appropriate for High Court to dispose of civil revision and thereby render subject‑ matter of present appeal infructuous.
Fazle Mahmood, Advocate and Rana Maqbool Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant.
M. A. Khadim, Advocate and Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 1.
Sajjad Hussain, Advocate for Respondent No. 2.
Date of hearing : 15th March 1977.
The subject‑matter of this appeal by special leave is the interim order passed by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court on 14‑9‑1973 directing that status quo shall be maintained till the disposal of the Civil Revision (P. A. O. No. 157 of 1973). The relevant facts are:
The Bank of Bahawalpur Ltd. obtained a decree against Abdul Qayyum Khan Atif, respondent, for Rs. 1,72,650.49 from the Court of Senior Civil JLdge, Lahore. In execution of the decree by the Bank, the Thal Engineering Industries Ltd., Jauharabad, was attached and sold as the property owned by the judgment‑debtor. Abdul Rehman, appellant herein, purchased the aforesaid factory at the auction sale for Rs. 77,000.
During the execution proceedings, The That Engineering Industries Ltd., respondent, filed objections wider rule 99, Order XXI, C. P. C. objecting to the attachment and sale of the factory on the ground that it did not belong to the judgment‑debtor the executing Court rejected the objections, confirmed the sale arid issued a certificate under rule 94, Order XXI. C. P. C. in favour of the petitioner on 10‑9‑1,973.
On the application of the appellant/auction‑purchaser, a warrant for delivery of possession of the factory was issued on 13‑9‑1973 and possession of the factory was delivered to him on 15‑9‑1973.
In the meantime the respondent No. 1, The Thal Engineering Industries Ltd, had filed F. A. O. in the High Court against the order of the executing Court whereby their objections to confirmation of the sale were rejected. The High Court treated the appeal as a Civil Revision and admitted it to regular hearing on 14‑9‑1973. By the same order it was directed that status quo will be maintained till the disposal of the Revision Petition.
Though the order for maintaining status quo was passed on 14‑9‑1973, it was yet to be intimated to the executing Court when, as mentioned above, possession of the factory delivered to the appellant/decree‑holder. In pursuance to this order of maintenance of status quo the judgment debtor moved the executing Court for restitution of possession. The application was dismissed on the ground that restoration of possession could be ordered on the application by the Thal Engineering Industries Ltd., and not by the judgment‑debtor.
The judgment‑debtor then moved an application in the High Court for restitution of possession which was allowed and following the Full Bench decision in Karam Ali and others v. Raja and others (P L D 1949 Lah. 100), it was directed that possession be restored to the judgment‑debtor.
The appellant obtained leave to appeal from the order of the High Court to consider whether the order passed by the executing Court refusing to restore possession could be interfered with by the High Court which seized with the Civil Revision, directed against the order by which the objections filed by the judgment‑debtor under Order XXI, rule 99, C. P. C. were rejected.
On hearing the learned counsel We are of the view that instead of dealing with the propriety or legality of an interim order passed by the High Court it is more appropriate that the High Court should dispose of the Civil Revision which will render the subject‑matter of this appeal infructuous. We are inclined to adopt this course as 3 years have gone by since the interim order was passed by the High Court and the Civil Revision is still pending which, at best, should have taken a few months if not a few weeks to be disposed of:
We, accordingly, direct that both parties should appear before the Registrar of the High Court to obtain a date within the next fortnight for the hearing of the Civil Revision. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. Costs of this appeal will abide the final determination of the Civil Revision.
Order accordingly.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer