1994 PLP 1764 (SCMR)

SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J: ‑‑The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against an order of the High Court dated 15‑7‑1992.

2. There existed an agreement to sell dated 27‑6‑1989 whereunder the appellant had undertaken to sell 56 Kanals 14, Marlas of agricultural land situated in Village Nangal Sadhan, Tehsil Ferozewala, District Sheikhupura: The respondent instituted a civil suit claiming specific performance of it. Pending the decision in the suit he sought interim relief by an application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. praying as hereunder:‑ "The respondent may be restrained from alienating, gifting, selling, transferring the suit land and from raising any construction thereon, in any way, whatsoever. The respondent may also be restrained from changing the nature and complexion of the suit land in any way whatsoever, while granting ad interim injunction, status quo qua the suit land may kindly be ordered to be maintained."

3. This application was contested by the petitioner but was allowed by the trial Court on 28‑4‑1991. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner approached the District Judge. The Additional District Judge disposed of the matter without going into the question of competency of appeal and dismissed it as being without merit.

4. The petitioner was then advised to file a first appeal in the High Court, as, according to the petitioner, the subject‑matter of the suit in which this application had been made was beyond the jurisdiction of the District Judge. The High Court dismissed the first appeal in limine as time‑barred notwithstanding the explanation by the petitioner that he had gone and obtained adjudication from a forum not possessed of the jurisdiction in the matter.

5. We do not propose going into the merits of the question of competency of appeal, the refusal to condone the delay and the bona fide of the petitioner because the matter relates to an interim regulatory order valid only for the purposes of and during the pendency of the litigation. The parties affected by it are at all times entitled on cause being shown to get appropriate amendment in it. The grievance of the petitioner is that while such a restraint was being imposed on him in the matter of alienation of the property the plaintiff/respondent should have been called upon to deposit or guaranteed the balance amount due as price of the land. We do not think that there is any absolute restraint on the petitioner in making such a request to the Court as this aspect of the matter has not been considered by it in the interim order that has been passed. If there is inordinate delay in disposing of the suit itself then also such a request can be made with a view to seek suitable alteration in the interim order.

6. It is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal. Hence leave to appeal is refused: AA./A‑1088/S ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave refused.