1989 PLP 4604 (MLD)

Sh. Muzaffar Ahmad Zafar for Respondent No.

1. Nemo for Respondent No.

2. Date of hearing: 24th May, 1989. Dispute involved in this civil revision relates to an evacuee property. In a suit brought by respondent No. 1, Musharaf Khanum, against the petitioner. Ghulam Hussain and respondent No. 2, Member Board of Revenue, with the powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab, Lahore, she prayed for a temporary injunction restraining defendants in the suit from interfering with her possession over the house in dispute as well as from making any alteration in the settlement record relating thereto. The injunction was refused by the trial Court, but, on appeal it was issued by an Additional District Judge. This civil revision is directed against the order of the learned appellate Court.

2. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order interfered with the functioning of the Board of Revenue which is a Department of the Provincial Government and as such it could not be issued under clause (d) of section 56 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. It was also maintained by him that before the issuance of the said temporary injunction, an order had been passed by the learned trial Court restraining the defendants from raising further construction on the site in dispute and directing them to maintain status quo regarding possession thereof. According to him, this safeguard was sufficient for the purpose of respondent No. 1 (plaintiff) and there was no justification whatsoever for allowing further relief which is now under challenge.

3. On the other hand, it was submitted by learned counsel for respondent No. 1 that respondent No. 2 had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter and, therefore, he was rightly restrained from making any alteration in the settlement record.

4. Whether or not respondent No. 2 had jurisdiction to deal with the matter in question will be decided in due course. It cannot, however, be denied that the A Department headed by respondent No. 2 is a Government Department and the stay order issued against him amounts to interference with the functioning of that Department, To this extent, order under challenge offends against clause (d) of section 56 of the Specific Relief Act. While saying so I am prepared to afford all possible safeguards to respondent No. 1 with a view to protecting her interest. As pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner, there is already stay order in her favour whereby defendants have been directed to refrain from raising further construction at the site in dispute and to maintain status quo regarding possession of the disputed property during the pendency of the suit. I further direct that the petitioner shall not alienate the house or encumber it in any manner during the pendency of the suit. Needless to say that if any document is issued by respondent No. l during the pendency of the suit or any alteration is made by him in the relevant record, it will be subject to the result of the suit.

5. Order under challenge is modified in terms of the above observations and this civil revision is disposed of accordingly with no order as to rents.

6. The learned Civil Judge who is seized of the suit shall endeavour to decide the suit before the coming summer vacations. H.B.T./G‑281/L Order accordingly.