1982 P Cr (PLP)

4. That this Anjuman also arrayed as defendant No. 21 in the main suit.

5. That it was further alleged in the plaint, that the defendant shown in the plaint gave contributions towards this School and the Anjuman purchased certain plot for the Madrasah. The respondent Ch. Muhammad Ishaq arrogated to himself the position of the President of the Anjuman and stated, that he had Rs. 67,500 cash in hand of the Anjuman with him.

6. That in the year 1976 it is alleged, the respondent Ch. Muhammad Ishaq announced his intention to establish a Jamat Khana for certain category of persons, provided substantial contributions were made for the purpose. It is the case of Ch. Muhammad Ishaq in the plaint, that on 31st November, 1976 he entered into an agreement of sale with one Mohammad Iqbal, shown as defendant No. 22 in the plaint, for purchase of property No. A/2827/I, 3‑A for Rs. 50,000 and a sum of Rs. 5,000 was paid as earnest money. This money was claimed to be personal money of the respondent Ch. Muhammad Ishaq. It was further stated in the plaint, that on 31st December, 1976 another agreement was executed with one Altaf Ali for the property bearing No. A/2827/1 and A/2827/2, Tilack Incline, Hyderabad for another amount of Rs. 50,

000. Again a sum of Rs. 5,000 was paid as earnest money, which was claimed to be personal money of the respondent Ch. Muhammad Ishaq.

7. That) on 5th April, 1977 two sale‑deeds were executed and register ed. One alleged to be executed by defendant No. 22 and the other sale deed by defendant No.

23. Both the sale‑deeds were in favour of respon dent No.

2. A sum of Rs. 90,000 was paid by the said respondent and was claimed to be personal money. It was further claimed in the plaint, that the two sale‑deeds were void/voidable on the option of the said respondent, if the consideration amount of the sales was shown to have been paid by any person other than the respondent No.

2. A number of facts were alleged to the plaint and finally the said respondent No. 2 prayed for declaration of execution ownership of the suit property and further reliefs in the nature of correction in the sale‑deeds about the consideration amount was sought, alongwith the injunction.

8. That after the suit was filed, injunction application under section 39, rules 1 and 2 and 151, C. P. C. was moved by the defendants Nos. 1 to 15 in the said suit. The defendants in the suit claimed injunction in respect of property No. A/2827/2, praying for injunction, restraining the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property etc.

9. That the Court of learned 1st Senior Civil Judge, Hyderabad was pleased to order the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 to maintain status quo on 21st March, 1981 and the matter was adjourned to 21st April, 1982 for further proceedings.

10. That the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 despite existence of the Court of status quo, in respect of possession of suit property, restored to unlawful mean and dispossessed the petitioner illegally and in violation of the injunc tion/status quo order of the Court on 21st March, 1981, the act of disposses sion took place on 18th April, 1981.

11. That it is admitted position that the possession was with defen dant No. 2/petitioner in this petition. This fact has been admitted in F. I. R. dated 19th March, 1981 filed by respondents Nos. 2 and 3 alleging, that the defendant in this suit had forcibly taken' possession of the suit property.

12. That on account of this serious violation of the Court's order, the law and order situation had resulted, which subsequently natured into 107, Cr. P. C. proceedings.

13. That the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 deliberately exhibited wilful disregard for the authority of the Court and have intentionally violated the order of the Court as mentioned above.

14. Learned Advocate for respondents at the out set submitted, that in view of tae decision of hon'ble Supreme Court reported in ‑P L D 1966 S C 802, the above petition was not maintainable, as petitioner has alter nate remedy under Order XXXIX, rule 2 (3) (4), C. P. C.

15. Learned Advocate for petitioner in view of above‑mentioned decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court submitted, that he does not press the above petition but since petitioner on admission of the above petition withdraw his application under Order XXXIX, rule 2 (3) (4), C. P. C. he may be permitted to repeat the said application, before the learned trial Court.

16. I have carefully considered the above submissions made by the learned Advocates before me and have carefully gone through the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in P L D 1966 S C

802. It is obvious from the proceedings of above application, that attention of the Court was not drawn to this decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, at the time of admission of above petition. In my opinion, it is clear from the above decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court that present petition is not maintainable and as such. I dismiss the same as not maintainable and withdraw Contempt notices issued to respondents Nos. 2 and 3.

17. Further with the consent of the learned Advocates of the parties, direct that the petitioner will be at liberty to move fresh application under Order XXXIX, rule 2 (3) (4). C. P. C. before the trial Court for allege breach of status quo order, which application shall be disposed of on merits, after giving full opportunities to both the parties to contest the same, in accordance with law. The learned Advocate for respondents Nos. 2 and 3 has agreed, that withdrawal of earlier application by petitioner, on admission of above petition, shall not be bar to such fresh application and respondents will not raise any such technical objections to such fresh application, even if such objections are legally available to them.

18. The above petition stands dismissed in terms of the above order. Petition dismissed.