P L D 1993 Lahore 912 (PLP)

This Constitutional petition is directed against the order dated 21-7-1993 of the Additional District Judge, Lahore, accepting the appeal of respondent No.2 against the order dated 6-12-1992 of the Civil Judge, Lahore where he issued stay order in the execution petition filed by the present petitioner.

2. Briefly stated respondent No.2 Maqsooda Begum. filed ejectment petition against respondent No.3 father of the present petitioner and there was a compromise decree dated 7-9-1986 that respondent No.3 would vacate the rented premises on 1-8-1989 and this having not been done, respondent No.2 filed execution application on 2-11-1989 before the lower Court. The petitioner, son of respondent No.3 filed objection petition while on the other hand Maqsooda Begum. respondent No.2 filed application for warrant of possession. On this the petitioner filed an application under section 151, C.P.C. for stay order. The learned Civil Judge dismissed the application of the landlady for warrant of possession and issued stay order in favour of the petitioner on his application under section 151, C.P;C. The following is the operative part of his order "In view of what has-been stated above, the application filed by the decree-holder Mst. Maqsooda Begum for the issuance of a warrant for possession is hereby dismissed whereas the application filed by the objector Mr. Khalid Mirza for stopping the proceedings of warrant for possession till the disposal of his objection petition is hereby accepted. It is hereby directed that the objector Khalid Mirza shall not be evicted from the disputed premises, before the disposal of his objection petition."

3. Against the aforementioned order dated 6-12-1992 respondent No.2 Maqsooda Begum filed an appeal which was accepted by order dated 21-7-1993 of the Additional District Judge, Lahore who accepted the prayer of the appellant in the following manner "I, therefore, allow the conversion of this appeal into revision and hold that the impugned order was passed by the learned Executing Court in excess of the jurisdiction so vested in him. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be allowed to sustain on record. This revision petition is, therefore, accepted and impugned order is set aside. Parties to bear the costs." The petitioner has filed this Constitutional petition against this order.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore acted without jurisdiction vide his order dated 21-7-1993 in converting the appeal into revision petition and consequently if the stay order is not issued the objection petition will become infructuous. 5. 1 have given deep consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel and find that these are misconceived. Admittedly the decree was passed in favour of respondent No.2 Mst. Maqsooda Beguin against respondent No.3 father of the petitioner and there was a compromise that the latter will vacate the premises on 1-8 1989. This was by virtue of compromise decree dated 7-9-1986 and it is the height of injustice that since August, 1989 respondent No.2 Mst. Maqsooda Begum has not been put in possession of the premises. Learned Additional District Judge has considered the case of the petitioner extensively and came to irresistible conclusion that the order of the Executing Court staying the warrant of possession against respondent No.2 was illegal and in excess of the jurisdiction. It was pointed out that on the facts of the case if the petitioner succeeds then the possession can be redelivered to him.

6. After going through the entire record I am in complete agreement with the learned Additional District Judge that the learned Civil Judge ought not to have passed the stay order in favour of the petitioner against respondent No.2. While accepting the revision petition of the respondent, it was in the mind of Additional District Judge that there was a compromise decree passe(l in 1986 that respondent No3 father of the petitioner will hand over the vacant possession of the house in dispute to respondent No.2 in 1989. it is high time that the lower Court should apply its mind and not issue stay order indiscriminately which results in unnecessary litigation. I must observe that the very purpose of law is that the ejectment cases be disposed of within minimum time and should not be frustrated by illegal orders as is done in the present cage by the Civil Judge, Lahore vide his order dated 6-12-1992 which has been scrapped by the learned Additional District Judge by his order dated 21-7-1993. In view of the above, there is no force in this writ petition which seems to be fallacious and the same is dismissed in limine. However, the trial Court is directed to put respondent No.2 in possession of the house in dispute forthwith.

7. A copy of this order be sent to the Executing Court , without any further delay. The office shall also transmit a, copy of this order to the learned District Judge, Lahore who shall see compliance thereof and also hold an inquiry as to why objection petition of the petitioners remained pending disposal for more than 3 years and has not been disposed of tin today. The result of the inquiry may be intimated to the Deputy Registrar (Judi.) of this Court, who will place the same before me on 31-10-1993. AA./K-94/L Petition dismissed.