' GHULAM SARWAR KORAI, J.---This civil revision application has been filed by the applicant against the order dated 24-12-2010, passed by the learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi West whereby Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No,20 of 2001 filed by the applicant against the respondent No,1 was dismissed and order of the trial Court dated 12-8-2010 was maintained.
2. The facts of the case are that on 30-9-2006 respondent No,1 filed suit against the applicant and respondent No,2 in the court of learned Illrd Senior Civil Judge, Karachi West sought declaration, possession and permanent injunction in respect of residential house along with five shops and two rooms on ground floor and one room in the first floor on Plot No,790 (corner) situated at Pak Muslim Muhammadi Colony Shah Jalal Street, Kalpana Chowk, Maripur, UC-5, Keamari District West Karachi.
3. An application under Order XXXI Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. Was also filed by the respondent No,1 along with her suit.
4. After service the applicant being defendant No,1 filed written statement on 10-3-2007 while defendant No,2, respondent No,2 in the present Civil Revision application, filed his written statement on 12-8-2009.
5. Before service of the process of the suit upon the defendants, the learned trial Court passed interim order on the application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C. P. C. r/w section 151, C.P.C. On 8- 12-2006. The operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-- "The parties are directed to maintain status quo till next date of hearing, the defendants have not been served with the summons Notice in this case. As, such, the matter is now fixed on 21-12-2006 for service upon defendants."
6. Subsequently, the case was repeatedly adjourned and the position of the above order on various dates noted from the certified copies of the case diaries annexed with this application is as under:- - S.No. Date Status of Status-QUO
1. 1-12-2006 Ex party status quo was-ordered
2. 21-12-2006 Extended
3. 20-1-2007 Extended
4. 3-2-2007 Extended
5. 21-2-2007 Extended
6. 10-3-2007 Not Extended
7. 4-4-2007 Extended without condonation application
8. 30-4-2007 Not extended
9. 16-5-2007 Extended without condonation application
10. 28-5-2007 Extended
11. 11-7-2007 Not extended
12. 30-7-2007 Not extended
13. 20-8-2007 Not extended
14. 12-9-2007 Not extended
15. 26-9-2007 Extended without condonation application
16. 11-10-2007 Not extended
17. 31-10-2007 Last extended without condonation application ' Subsequently case was adjourned from time to time upto 1-9-2009 without any extension of stay order.
7. On 1-9-2009, an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2(3), C.P.C. Was filed by the respondent No, 1/plaintiff against the applicant/defendant No,1 stating therein that the applicant has committed contempt of Court and dispossessed the plaintiff/respondent No,1 without due process of law from the suit property thus defendant No,1/present applicant has violated and disobeyed the status quo order and threatened to the plaintiff, her family and filed fake complaints and lodged F.I.Rs, against her, her husband and children and issued threats for dire consequences with support of A.S.-I.
Misqeen, who is Investigating Officer. Upon notice counter affidavit was filed by the applicant/defendant No,1 then on 12-8-2010 a non-speaking order was passed by the trial Court, which is reproduced as under:-- "Application allowed, therefore, defendant No, 1 is directed to restore the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff forthwith. The application is disposed of accordingly."
8. The applicant being aggrieved from that order filed Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No,20 of 2010 in the Court of District Judge, Karachi West, which was entrusted to the Court of learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi West, and was dismissed vide Order dated 24-12-2010 which is impugned in the present Civil revision application.
9. Heard Mr. Masood Khan Ghori, counsel for the applicant and Mr. Sikandar Khan, counsel for respondent No,1 while none present for the respondent No,2 though he was served.
10. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that order passed by the trial Court is not a speaking order and is without jurisdiction as on 8-12-2006 ex parte status quo was ordered. It was extended for 21-12-2006, 20-1-2007; 3-2-2007 and 21-2-2007 while on 10-3-2007 same was not extended, again it was extended on 4-4-2007 then on 30-4-2007 it was not extended and on the subsequent dates sometimes it was extended and sometimes it was not extended. He further submits that once conditional status quo order was passed for the next date of hearing and if it was not extended then without filing or considering subsequent applications extension of the same was without any legal cover, therefore, passing the impugned order by the trial court directing the applicant to hand over the possession to the respondent No,1 was an illegal order and without jurisdiction. He further submits that maintaining the order of the trial Court by the Appellate Court was also without any legal support.
11. Learned counsel for the respondent No,1 contended that order passed by the trial Court was maintained by the appellate Court and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to disturb the concurrent findings as according to him Civil Revision application has very limited scope.
12. I have also perused the file.
13. Admittedly, status quo order was granted oil 8-12-2006 up to next date of hearing viz. 21-12- 2006. Subsequently, it was extended up to 21-2-2007 and on the next date i,e, 10-3-2007 it was not extended then on the subsequent dates sometimes it was extended and sometimes it was not extended while firstly it was not extended on 10-3-2007 them extension of the same on the subsequent dates by the trial Court amounts to overlooking this legal position. If the allegations of respondent No,1 may be believed in toto that he was dispossessed by the applicant then it will not come within the definition of sections 3 and 4 of Contempt of Court Act as at the time of dispossession in, the year 2009 there was no status quo order. Maintaining the order of the trial court by the appellate court itself amounts to overlooking the legal and factual position, therefore, I am of the view that order passed by the trial court maintained by the appellate courts was of mis- leading and overlooking the legal position. Consequently, this Civil Revision Application is allowed.
Order of the appellate court and of the trial Court are hereby set aside.