1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-This petition for special leave to appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit arises out of the modification made by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction in an order passed by a learned Civil Judge granting temporary injunction in favour of the petitioners.
2. The petitioners had filed a suit for declaration qua ownership to the extent of 33/80 shares in an urban property. The learned trial Judge on their application under Order XXXIX, rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, as mentioned in this petition, (copy of the order not produced), "restrained (the defendants) from changing the status of the property and maintaining the status quo with respect to the whole of the property till the final decision of the suit". The respondents' appeal before the learned District Court having failed, their main plea in the High Court was that the trial Court order was bad at least in so far as the proceedings launched by them before the Rent Controller for the ejectment of the tenants was unassailable. The learned High Court proceeding on the assumption that a joint owner could file an ejectment petition against a tenant held that the question would be splitted into two parts, one dealing with the proceedings of ejectment before the Rent Controller and the other with the general question of maintenance of status quo. With regard to the first question it was further held that there was no justification in staying the proceedings before the Rent Controller.
3. Learned counsel has contended that some of the tenants are paying rent to the petitioners while the others had attorned to the respondents. The respondents intend to eject those tenants who have attorned to the petitioners. This, as argued, would injuriously affect the right of the petitioners.
4. The argument in so far as it goes might have some merit, but the order passed by the learned Judge in the High Court is neither against any, law nor principle. Moreover, it does not injuriously affect the petitioners' interest or the tenants who have attorned to them because the impugned order has permitted the continuance of the proceedings before the Rent controller and has in no way affected the order for maintenance of statue quo in so far as their physical ejectment by the respondents (as a result of an ejectment order it and when passed) is concerned. This supposition is amply clean from the following observations made in para. 7 of the impugned order:- "Modify the order of injunction to the extent that it will not apply to the stay of proceedings before the Rent Controller against the tenants. The other portion of the stay, viz, the maintenance of status quo otherwise shall remain in force."
5. The result is that the order for maintenance of status quo passed in favour of the petitioners, in so far as the physical ejectment of the tenants is concerned, would protect the latter during the pendency of the suit, notwithstanding the continuance of the proceedings before the Rent Controller, even if they end in an order of ejectment. With these observations we find no merit in this petition, and the same is dismissed.