1993 PLP 1851 (CLC)

‑‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr.l & 2‑‑‑Status quo‑‑‑Violation‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Maintainability‑‑‑Petitioner who claimed to be occupant of plot in dispute, apprehending that Authority at the instance of respondents would demolish construction on plot filed two civil suits against respondents/Authority and obtained status quo order from Court‑‑‑Respondent Authority allegedly violating the status quo order demolished the construction on which petitioner filed contempt application in the Trial Court which was pending‑‑‑Pending suits and application for contempt of Court in Civil Court, petitioner had filed Constitutional petition praying that action of respondents in ejecting him from plot in dispute be declared illegal and that possession of plot be restored to him‑‑‑1 , in case petitioner had been dispossessed despite orders of status quo passed by Civil Court, remedy of petitioner lay in moving same Court which remedy petitioner had already availed as he had filed application for contempt of Court which application was pending before Court and petitioner should have pursued that application. to its logical end‑‑‑If Civil Court found that petitioner was dispossessed/ejected during subsistence of order of status quo, it would certainly direct restoration of possession of plot to him‑‑‑Since petitioner had already taken recourse to remedy of civil suits which could not be said to be not adequate or efficacious, he was not entitled to agitate same dispute in Constitutional petition. M. Anwar Sipra for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 7th October, 1992. Case of the petitioner is that he is in occupation of Plot No. S.45 measuring 3 Marlas and 215 sq. ft. situate in Katchi Abadi near Mohallah Tariqabad, Faisalabad for a period for more than 20 years and he has raised construction thereon for his own accommodation. Apprehending that FDA at the instance of respondent No.4 would demolish the construction, the petitioner filed a civil suit against the FDA and obtained an order of status quo from the Additional District Judge on 8‑10‑1988. It is further alleged that the petitioner filed another suit against respondent No. 3, a local Councillor and respondent No. 4 Abdul Hamid who attempted to demolish the construction raised by the petitioner and in that suit also, an order of status quo was passed on 26‑12‑1990 by Mr. Atta Ullah Kauser, learned Civil Judge, Faisalabad. Further allegation made by the petitioner is that despite the orders of status quo the respondent Councillor after obtaining the orders from Mayor of the Corporation got his house demolished at the instance of respondent No.

4. He filed an application for contempt of Court which was pending. Grievance of the petitioner is that he has been illegally dispossessed from the disputed property by the respondent Corporation and he has, therefore, approached this Court through this Constitutional petition praying that action of, the respondents, in ejecting him from the disputed plot be declared to be without lawful authority and the respondent Corporation be directed to restore possession of the disputed property to him.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is not denied that the two suits are still pending and in both the suits, according to the petitioner, orders of status quo have been passed. If the petitioner has been dispossessed despite the orders of status quo passed by the Civil Court, his remedy lay in moving the same Court which remedy the petitioner has already availed and his application for contempt proceedings is stated to be pending before the Civil Court. He should, therefore, pursue the application to its logical end. Learned counsel has expressed his apprehension that the Civil Court may not restore the possession of the property to the petitioner. The apprehension does not appear to be well based. If the Civil Court finds that the petitioner was dispossessed ejected during subsistence of the order of status quo it will certainly direct the restoration of the possession to him. Since the petitioner has already taken recourse to the remedy of civil suits which in the facts and circumstances of the case cannot be said to be not adequate or efficacious, he is not entitled to agitate the same dispute in constitutional jurisdiction. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed but with no order as to costs. H.B.T./M‑1052/L Petition dismissed.