P L D 1982 Supreme Court 325 (PLP)

ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑The facts giving rise to this application as 'stated in order dated 20‑12‑1981, are as follows :‑ "The dispute in this case relates to the transfer of a shop by the Settlement authorities to Muhammad Ismail (predecesor‑in‑interest of the petitioners) through auction held on 24‑8‑1960. He paid the entire transfer price and the P. T. D. was also issued in his favour. The transfer, however, was challenged and the matter ultimately came to this Court through the above?noted petition.

2. Leave was granted to the petitioners on 8‑8‑1981. While granting leave it was observed :‑‑ "The learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that respondent No. 1 may be put on terms so that in the event of success the petitioners do not remain without a relief in the matter of rent and compensation for use of the property: Let notice issue with regard to this application as well." Notices were consequently issued to the respondents regarding the prayer for interim relief and on 20‑12‑1981, the following order was passed "After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we think that it is a fit case where the respondents should be required to furnish a security to compensate the petitioners in case they succeed specially in view of the fact that the respondents have been ordered to be ejected from the premises in question by the Rent Controller. The respondents are, therefore, directed to furnish Rs. 10,000 as security for use and occupation of the premises in question for the last 3 years and furnish a further security at the rate of Rs. 1,000 per month for use and occupation of the said shop. The security shall be deposited within 15 days."

2. On 29‑3‑1982, the Deputy Registrar of this Office brought it to our notice that the respondent‑applicant had not furnished the security as directed . by this Court. The counsel was asked to appear in person to explain. H " submitted that the respondent‑applicant had gone abroad and was, therefore unable to comply with the aforementioned order of the Court. The case was, thereupon, ordered to be put up before the Court. An application was also filed by Raja Abdur Razzak, A. S. C. on behalf of the applicant praying for extension of 3 months time for complying with the direction of the Court. This was opposed by the counsel for the petitioner (in the main petition).

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we feel that the respondent‑applicant has deliberately failed to comply with the order of this Court. We are, therefore, of the view that possession of the shop in dispute should be handed. over to Muhammad Siddiq petitioner (on behalf of the petitioners in the main petition). We are informed by the petitioner's learned counsel that the shop in question is locked by the respondent but not occupied by the respondent or anybody else. In the circumstances the relevant Dispute Settlement Commissioner is required to hand over the vacant possession of the shop in question to Muhammad Siddiq petitioner through an appropriate official of his department. This disposes of the civil miscellaneous application (No. 147/82) in ' C. P. S. L. A. No. 283/76. S. A. H. Leave refused.