Find a Lawyer

---0. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2--Order granting status quo and order granting temporary injunction in terms of application whereby an order restraining other party from dispossessing applicant forcibly or otherwise than in due course of law prayed for, held, were different orders.

---0. XXXIX, Rr. 2(3) & 4--Contempt of Court Act (LXIV of 1976) S. 3--Application for injunction against dispossession in suit for permanent injunction--Status quo--Counsel for parties conceding that question whether respondent-plaintiffs were in possession of suit property at time of institution of suit requiring determination in suit itself and as such trial Court be directed to dispose of suit expeditiously together with application under O. XXXIX, R. 2(3), Civil Procedure Code read with S. 3, Contempt of Courts Act--Order passed accordingly--Question of possession and alleged violation of status quo order to be decided by Trial Court on basis of evidence produced at trial and issue on contempt application also to be framed and decided on basis of evidence.

Muhammad Anwar Warraich for Petitioners

Malik Muhammad Nawaz for Respondents.

Date of hearing; 6th November, 1985.

The facts relevant for the disposal of this revision petition under section 115, C.P.C. are that in a suit for permanent injunction filed by the respondents an application for temporary injunction restraining the petitioners from dispossessing the respondents-plaintiffs from the property in dispute illegally and forcibly otherwise than in due course of law was submitted. The learned trial Court passed en order for maintenance of the status quo as regards possession. The petitioners then filed two applications, one under Order XXXIX, Rule 4, C.P.C. for vacation of the status quo order and the other under Order XXVI rule 9, C.P.C. for appointment of local commission to ascertain the position with regard to actual physical possession over the property in dispute. The local commission appointed submitted report, dated 11-1-1984 to the Court. The third application under Order XXXIX, Rule 2(3), C . P. C . read with section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act for initiating contempt proceedings against the petitioners was submitted by the respondents-plaintiffs. The learned trial Court, vide its order, dated 26-2-1984 disposed of these three applications in the manner that the application for temporary injunction was accepted holding that the plaintiffs-respondents were in possession of the suit property at the date of institution of the suit and were entitled to the temporary injunction prayed for on the basis of the possession and the report of the local commission was set aside. As regards the alleged violation of the status quo order it was observed that the question of contempt on account of alleged violation can only be decided after receiving evidence on the question whether there was possession which was later disturbed or whether the party was not in possession from the very beginning. After making this observation the learned trial Court framed the issue whether the defendants-respondents have violated the order of this Court, dated 3-1-1984, if so its effect, and the parties were directed to produce evidence on 25th July, 1984 in respect of the issue. The petitioners then challenged this order by filing an appeal and the learned Additional District Judge, vide judgment, dated 3-7-1985 upheld and maintained the order of the learned trial Court granting the status quo order. The order of the learned trial Court to the extent that it set aside the report of the local commission and framed the issues on the contempt application was, however, set aside. The appeal of the petitioners to this extent was thus accepted and these two matters were remanded, for deciding afresh the question of confirmation or cancellation of the report of local commission and for framing issues on contempt application after giving full opportunity of hearing to the petitioners-defendants. This led to :Ire filing of the present revision petition

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the respondents plaintiffs were not in possession of the suit property at the time of institution of the suit and as such the learned Courts below have erred in law in granting the temporary injunction application; that the questions of confirmation of injunction order as well as that of its alleged violation should be decided together under one and the same order as otherwise the case of one of the parties is likely to be prejudiced and that the finding returned on the injunction application by the two learned Courts below have in fact prejudiced the case of the petitioners-defendants. The learned counsel for the respondents in reply argued that the findings returned by the learned two Courts below on the question of possession at the time of institution of the suit was justified in view of the material available on record and that in fact an order restoring the possession to the respondents should have been made. He added that the learned trial Court had rightly set aside the report of the local commission and had justifiably proceeded with the contempt application by framing an issue and by calling upon the parties to lead evidence in respect of the issue framed.

3. In view of the order that I propose to pass it i5 not necessary to deal with the finding returned by the learned trial Court that the respondents- plaintiff's -were in possession of the suit property at the time of institution of the suit. It is, however, pertinent to point out that the learned appellate Court was not right in assuming that the learned Civil Judge had confirmed the status quo order passed on 3-1--1984. The learned trial Court though has passed status quo order on 3-1-1984 but, vide order, dated 26-2-1984 it had granted the temporary injunction as prayed for in the temporary injunction application. There is difference between the order granting status quo and order granting temporary injunction in terms of the temporary injunction application whereby an order restraining the other party from dispossessing the applicant forcibly or otherwise than in due course of law was prayed for. This distinction should have been kept in mind by the learned appellate Court.

4. Learned counsel for the parties conceded before me that the question whether the respondents-plaintiffs were in possession of the, suit property at the time of the institution of the suit also require 's determination in the suit itself and as such the learned trial Court be directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously together with the application under Order XXXIX, Rule 2(3), C.P.C. read with, section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act. The request is reasonable. The question of possession and the alleged violation of the status quo order shall be decided by the learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence produced at the trial. The issue framed on the contempt application shall also be decided on the basis of the evidence produced during the trial without being influenced from the observations made and the finding returned in the order, dated 26-2-1984.,The learned trial Court shall decide the suit within 6 months.

5. The parties are left to bear their own costs.

M . Y - H . Order accordingly.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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