1989SCMR1529 (PLP)

MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought, against the dismissal by the High Court, of petitioner's Civil Revision which had arisen out of an alleged contravention of final orders passed by this Court in an earlier round of litigation, by initiating fresh litigation about the title, prior to the handing over of the possession of the suit property as directed by the Supreme Court. We have heard both the sides. It is not disputed from the respondents side that m pursuance of the judgment of this Court dated 14‑12‑1985, the possession was to be handed over to the present petitioner's side. It was thereafter "that the question of title" could be "adjudicated upon by the Court of general jurisdiction". It is also admitted position that the impugned litigation about title has been started before handing over the possession. Learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the respondents' side could retain the possession of about 1/12th of the suit property‑‑the share which allegedly would fall to them. On question as to how much is the width of the shop in dispute so as to visualize the area for and manner in which the alleged right to possess the same could be exercised, learned counsel after consulting his client stated that it was 10 feet. When further questioned as to how possession over 1/12th of the shop could be retained if the 11/12th of the front is to be given to the petitioner's side, neither he nor his client could offer any answer. After affording full opportunity to the respondents' side we are satisfied that the spirit of the order passed by this Court has not been followed. We accordingly grant leave to appeal. It shall be prepared on the present record with direction to the parties to file all additional documents which would be necessary for disposal of the appeal. Security Rs.5,

000. It could be, prima facie, a case of contempt of this Court but in view of the fact that the parties are stated to be related to each other, we would not like that their relationship inter se should deteriorate any further. Such an action B would also frustrate any chance of a settlement out of Court which both the learned counsel state the pairties did negotiate for sometime during the past. No action for contempt, therefore, is called for, at this stage. In the interest of justice and in the implementation of a final order passed by this Court as also for doing complete justice, we, however, direct that the occupants of the shop in dispute shall vacate the same and hand over vacant possession to the petitioner within five days from today. If need be the petitioner shall be afforded police help for implement order through force. The compliance of this order shall be reported to the court by both sides on 7th March, 1989, to which date the case also stands adjourned. M.A.K./N‑161/S Leave granted.