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. 733 of 1983, decided on 9th May, 1983.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 9th April, 1983 in Civil Review Application No. 11‑C of 1982 in Civil Revision No. 211 of 1982).
------Art. 185(3)‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXIX, r. 4‑ Vacation of order of status quo ‑Facts of case examined by District Judge and twice by High Court in revision and review and concur rently holding that on account of supervening event there was no justification left for continuing order of status quo‑Prima facie, in substance, case was not found to exist in favour of petitioner‑ Petitioner seeking interlocutory order to be set aside by Supreme Court on appraisal of facts and evidence on record‑Held, there was no justification to interfere with, discretion exercised by two Courts in the matter‑Petition dismissed.
Muhammad Sayeed Akhtar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Inayat Hussain Shah, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 9th May, 1983.
This petition for special leave to appeal, is directed against the orders, dated 12‑6‑1982 and 9‑4‑1983, whereby revision applica tion and an application for review of the former order, were dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench. Multan.
According to the facts of the case, the petitioner bad filed a suit for declaration that he was the owner of the disputed land which bad fallen to his share by virtue of an agreement of exchange, dated 1‑2‑1973 executed between him and the respondent. On petitioner's application for grant of injunction, the learned trial Court passed an order, dated 8‑4‑1980 for maintaining status quo in respect of the suit land. The respondent later moved an application under Order XXXIX, rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure for vacation of the order of the stay which was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, on 27‑4‑1981. However, on appeal filed by the respon dent, the order of status quo was vacated by the learned District Judge, D. I. Khan on 17‑1‑1982. The said order was challenged by the petitioner in Civil Revision before the High Court which was dismissed on 12‑6‑1982 and his application for Review of the said order was also dismissed on 9‑4‑1983.
The facts of the case were examined by the learned District Judge and twice by the learned High Court, on petitioner's revision and review applications, and it was concurrently held that on account of a supervening event there was no justification left for continuing the order of status quo. In substance, therefore, a prima facie case was not found to exist in favour of the petitioner. In this petition, an interlocutory order is sought to be set aside on reappraisal of facts and evidence on the record for which, after going through the findings of the learned High Court, we find no justification to interfere with the discretion exercised, by the learned two Courts in the matter.
The petition fails and is dismissed accordingly.
M. Z. M. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer