Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: GULZAR MASIH and others VS Respondent: SARDAR ALI and others
Court Name: Lahore High Court Judge(s): Muhammad Munir Khan Title: GULZAR MASIH and others vs SARDAR ALI and others Case No.: Civil Revision No,226 of 1982 Date of Judgment:1990-02-18 Reported As: 1991 CLC 1455 Result: Revision accepted
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT ' Gulzar Masih and four others, petitioners filed suit for possession to the effect that they were owners in possession of disputed Ahata situated in Chak No,104 Shumali, Tehsil and District Sargodha, against Raulla and three others, in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Sargodha. As a consequential relief, they prayed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession of the house raised by them on the disputed Ahata. Alongwith the suit, they filed application for grant of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession of the disputed Ahata and from demolishing the construction raised by them. The application was dismissed by the Civil Judge on 29-11-1981. The appeal filed by the petitioners also failed on 11-21982 Hence this revision. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that from the documents annexed with the plaint it is very much obvious that the petitioners are owners in possession of the disputed Ahata and that the question of grant of temporary injunction has not been considered by the Courts below, in accordance with the guiding principles laid down by the superior Courts. Sardar Ali respondent is present in person. He has not opposed this petition. 3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel with care. The suit was filed in the year 1981. The High Court vide its order dated 3-11-1985 had passed an order directing the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the property in dispute. Since Sardar Ali has not contested this petition, therefore, without making any expression with regard to the merits of the case lest it may prejudice the case of the either party, I feel inclined to accept this revision. 4. Resultantly, the orders of the Courts below are set aside and the parties are directed to maintain status quo till the decision of the suit by the trial Court. The parties shall bear their own costs.
---
## Page 2
5. Although the suit was filed in the year 1981, yet the same has not been decided so far. The trial Court shall decide the case within six months from today and may proceed from day to day, if necessary.