Find a Lawyer

---‑‑S.115 & O. XXXIX, r. 1 and West Pak1stan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967) read with Land Reforms Regula tion, 1972 [M. L. R. 115], para. 25‑Injunction‑Petitioner under threat of dispossession at hands of respondent filing suit for permanent injunction as well as application for temporary injunctions‑Petitioner placing on record copy of Khasra Girdawari to show that he was in possession of suit land as a tenant and that his, eviction could not be caused but under due process of law‑Respondent failing to appear and contest revision petition‑Order of Courts below dismissing stay application of petitioner set aside in circumstances and status quo maintained pending disposal of suit.‑[Injunction].

Mian Atta‑ur‑Rehman for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 1st November, 1980.

The petitioner is in possession of the suit land and the respondent having started threatening dispossession, the petitioner filed a suit for perpetual injunction restraining the respondent from causing his eviction save under the due process of law. Along with the suit there was an application for the grant of temporary injunction, which was refused by the learned Administrative Civil Judge, Nankana Sahib vide his order dated14‑11‑1975. The petitioner filled an appeal which was also dismissed by the learned D1strict Judge, Sheikhupura on 21‑6‑1977. This revision was admitted for regular hearing on 30‑8‑1977 on the contention of the petitioner that he was a tenant as envisaged under section 4 (26) of the Land Revenue Act and as a tenant be enjoys a protection under para. 25 of the Martial Law Regulation No. 115.

2. The respondents had been served and an intimation had also been issued to the respondent for 1‑11‑1980 but none appeared on behalf of the respondent inspite of repeated calls. The respondent is hereby proceeded ex parte.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not state about the correct position of the suit, which ought to have been decided by now. An how the petitioner has relied on a copy of the khasra girdawari placed on record as Annex. A in order to show that he was in possession of the Ian in question as a tenant and as such the respondent could not cause his eviction save under the due process of law. The respondent has not come to contest this ground of stay to the petitioner. I have no alternative but to accept this revision. I set aside the order of the Civil Judge, dated 14‑11‑1975 and that of the learned D1strict Judge, Sheikhupura dated 21‑6‑1977 and order the maintenance of status quo pending the disposal of the suit. As more than these years have elapsed when the status quo was ordered to be maintained by this Court, it is further directed that in case the suit has not been disposed of, the same shall be expedited.

4. As the respondent has not come to contest this revision there will be no order as to costs.

M.Y.H. Petition accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.