1992 PLP 1212 (MLD)

Dispute involved in this civil revision relates to a piece of land. Respondent No.1, M/s. Hajveri Cooperative Society Ltd., claims to have purchased the said land from the petitioners, Shah Din and another, and respondents Nos.3 to 9, Mst. Jannat Bibi and others. This is, however, denied by the petitioners and they maintain that no sale of the said land was made in favour of respondent No.1. ',The Lahore Development Authority, which figures as respondent No.2 herein, has acquired the said land for Jauhar Town Scheme. In view of this development, respondent No.1 filed a suit claiming ownership of the said land and also prayed for a temporary injunction directing respondent No.2 not to pay any compensation therefore to the petitioners and respondents Nos. 3 to 9 or allow the benefit of exemption to them. The temporary injunction was granted by the Civil Judge before whom the suit was filed Order of the learned Civil Judge was challenged by the petitioners by means of an appeal which was dismissed by an Additional District Judge. They have, therefore, come up in revision to this Court.

2. Respondent No.1 claims to have purchased the disputed land through an attorney appointed by the petitioners and respondents Nos. 3 to

9. Learned counsel contends that the said attorney was not appointed by them for the purpose and if there was any power of attorney with the man who acted as such, it was fictitious. It was. also urged by the learned counsel that respondent No.1 did not comply with the legal requirements for acquiring the disputed land. According to him, therefore, the two Courts below have committed material irregularity in granting the temporary injunction.

3. Whether or not respondent No.1 is owner of the disputed land is a question which will be determined by the trial Court in due cause after regular trial of the suit. What is to be noted at this stage is that respondent No.1 had prayed that no compensation be paid to the petitioners and respondents Nos. 3 to 9 nor advantage of exemption be made available to them during the pendency of the suit. The learned trial Court has issued a status quo order which has not been interfered with by the learned appellate Court. My interpretation of the status quo order is that till the disposal of the suit, the question of payment of compensation or that of allowing exemption shall not be determined by the Lahore Development Authority (respondent No.2) and that the said question shall be decided after final decision of the suit. This, to my mind, is an equitable arrangement. During the subsistence of the status quo order none of the parties is going to suffer at the cost of the others. I am, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the status quo order, as interpreted.` above, and dismiss this civil revision in limine. M.BA./S‑82/L Petition dismissed.