1988 MLD 946 (PLP)

This writ petition is directed against order dated 16‑10‑1978 of the learned Additional District Judge, Sheikhupura whereby he allowed revision petition, filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 against the order dated 27‑7‑1978 of the learned Civil Judge, Sheikhupura and dismissed petitioner's application for restoration of possession of the disputed property.

2. The facts in brief giving rise to this petition are that the learned Rent Controller, Sheikhupura directed ejectment of the petitioner from the disputed property. His appeal against the aforesaid order also failed on 6‑7‑1973 before the learned Additional District Judge, Sheikhupura. He, however, directed him to vacate the shop in dispute by 31‑7‑1973. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order in appeal before this Court and an order was passed on 1‑8‑1973 that his possession be not disturbed. The respondent in execution of the order of ejectment, obtained possession of the disputed property on 31‑7‑1973. The petitioner moved application under sections 144 and 151 C P C for restoration of w possession on the plea that the possession of the property could not have been delivered to the respondents on 31‑7‑1973. This application was allowed by the learned Civil Judge and direction was made for restoration of possession. The respondents challenged aforesaid order in revision before the learned Additional District Judge, Sheikhupura which was accepted and petitioner's application was R dismissed as aforementioned.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that warrant of possession could not have been executed against the petitioner on 31‑7‑1973 because the learned Additional District Judge had allowed him time to deliver possession of the shop by 31‑7‑1973.

4. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents on the other hand, pointed out that the appeal filed by the petitioner against order of the learned Additional District Judge also failed before this Court on 29‑3‑1982, as such, the order of petitioner's ejectment from the disputed shop had become final. It was stated that the petitioner could not retain possession of shop in view of the order of ejectment passed by the competent authorities operating against him.

5. I have considered the contentions raised by learned counsel for their parties and have gone through the documents on the file. It is not denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had to deliver possession of the disputed property on 31‑7‑1973 and the respondent obtained possession of the same in execution of the ejectment order on 31‑7‑1973. In other words respondents obtained possession of the shop in dispute on 31‑7‑1973 with the aid of the process of the Court. The order of stay was passed by this Court on 1‑8 1973 when the petitioner had already delivered possession of the shop in dispute the respondents, therefore, the order of stay passed on 1‑8‑1973 was ineffective and inoperative. Petitioner's appeal against the order of his ejectment had already failed before this court on 29‑3‑1982 and that order had not been further assailed by him.

6. The upshot of the above discussion is that there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. M.Y.H. Petition dismissed.