2007 PLP 1080 (YLR)

Laws Cited

Representation

• ----O.XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2---Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S. 3---Intra-court appeal---Disposal of plots---Status quo, grant of---Appellant who filed suit for specific performance of contract, along with plaint had filed application under O.XXIX, Rr.1 & 2, C.P.C. for grant of status quo and restraint order---Said application was disposed of by High Court with observation that appellant had failed to make out prima facie case, to show balance of convenience for grant of injunction in his favour---Counsel for respondents however, had stated that Government had abandoned the idea of disposing he plots in question---High Court ordered that official respondents would maintain status of plots in question in terms of statements made by counsel of respondents till disposal of suit, which was to be decided within specified period accordingly.
• Mansoorul Arifm for Appellant.
• We have given due consideration to the arguments of Mr. Mansoorul Arifin, learned counsel for appellant, Mr. Muhammad Sarwar Khan learned Additional Advocate-General and Mr. Zafar Ahmed Khan, learned counsel for respondents Nos.2 and 3.With their assistance, we have examined the documents referred to by them during the course of their arguments. The admitted fact is that the suit is pending decision wherein, inter alia, the question 'whether the plaintiff's bid was accepted by the defendant, if so, its effect" is to be determined. Thus the validity of the contract, if any, is to be seen at the time of final disposal of the suit at ? this stage the only question which reads to be decided is whether the respondents be restrained from leasing, allotting abovementioned plots.
• On perusal of the order dated 29-4-2005 in this appeal, it transpired that Mr. Naseem Qamar learned counsel, representing respondents Nos.2 and 3 had stated that Government had abandoned the idea of disposing of the bus stop in case i.e. the, plots involved in the matter. Mr. Zafar Ahmed Khan, learned counsel now appearing for the said respondents, confirms in his arguments that the position as regards the said plots remains the same. He, however, opposes this appeal and in support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on case of City Schools (Pvt.) Limited Lahore Cantt. v. Privatization Commission, Government of Pakistan and others (2002 SCMR 1150) and the case of Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Housing and Physical Planning Department Lahore and 4 others v. Muhammad Tauheed (2003 - YLR 1411): Learned Additional Advocate-General has shared his views.
• Since learned counsel for respondents Nos.2 and 3 states that the Government has abandoned the idea of disposing the plots in question and the learned A.A.-G. has shared that view, without going into intricacies, we order that the official respondents will maintain status of the plot in question in terms of their statement made, before this Court till disposal of suit which shall be decided within three months excluding summer vacations and in case the respondents/defendants intended to cause any variation in their statements, they shall bring that in the knowledge of learned trial Court and seek further orders thereon in its discretion.

Headnotes / Summary

Judgment & Decree