1979 PLP 508 (CLC)

Nerno for Respondents Nos. 1 and

2. Riaz Ali Abbasi for Respondent No.

3. Date of hearing : 18th and 19th March, 1979. This is a petition against an order of Mr. Abdul liastrxsr'Quteshi, Additional District Judge, Gujranwala, dated 17-4-1978 by which he dismissed the plaintiff-petitioners appeal against the refusal of the temporary injunction in their favour by the Administrative Civil Judge, (Gujranwala).

2. The facts of the case are that Attar Din predecessor in interest of the petitioners purchased the house in dispute on 24-4-19,17 from a Hindu, who later became an evacuee for a sum of Rs. 6,

000. Petitioner No. 1 made an application under section 22 of Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act, 1957 after a long time for confirmation of this sale. The Assistant Custodian dismissed his application on 11-4-1960. From another order shown to me by the learned counsel for the petitioners it appear, that on some other application submitted by the petitioner the Deputy Custodian recommended to the Additional Custodian for sanction a charge of Rs. 1.850 in his favour since this amount according to the Deputy's Custodian was the amount paid in the above transaction by the petitioner's father. The Additional Custodian however found that out of a sum of Rs.6000 which was the consideration money, the petitioner's father was proved to have paid a sum of Rs. 4,850 and since the balance amount was not paid, he mortgaged the property back to the Hindu. In these circum stances be verified the charge to that extent. The property in dispute was transferred under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 to respondent No. 3 who took proceedings for ejectment of the petitioners.

3. The petitioners filed a suit for permanent injunction on the basis of their alleged ownership of the property to restrain respondent No. 3 from ejecting them from the property in dispute. They submitted an application for temporary injunction which was dismissed by the learned trial Court and that order as stated above was maintained by the learned Additional District Judge.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners' cafe is based upon their ownership of the house in dispute by purchase the same by their predecessor-in-interest on 24-4-1947. He submitted that it was not necessary for the petitioners to obtain an order of the confirmation after the repeal of Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act, 1957 by Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Law (Repeal) Act, 1975. The learned counsel argued the same point before me in order to make out a prima facie case.

5. I do not agree that this is the effect of the repealing Act. In fact under section 6 of the General Clauses Act the orders passed and the right obtained or lost by any party under the repealed Acts cannot be taken away by the repeal.

6. This petition is, therefore, without force and is dismissed with costs. Petition dismissed.