Nasir-ul-Mulk, J.--This petition for leave to appeal against the interim order dated 06.06.2011 by a Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh in HCA No, 98 of 2011, emanates from a civil suit filed by the appellants before the High Court of Sindh, claiming lease hold rights to certain properties situated in Karachi West on the basis of a registered deed. During pendency of the suit certain interim orders were passed by the Courts regarding possession of the property, one such order dated 01.04.2010 was direction to the Nazir of the Court to take possession of the property on behalf of the Court. Another similar order passed on 26.05.2010. Sarfaraz Ahmed and others who were later impleaded as interveners in the suit, filed appeal before a Division Bench of the High Court assailing the said two orders. They claimed ownership and possession of the suit property and moved Misc. Application for protection of their possession till disposal of the appeal, Interim relief was granted to them by the impugned order, the operative paragraph of which reads: "Let notice be issued to the respondents and in the meantime the possession of the appellant may not be disturbed till next date. The appellants shall not create any third party interest and/or raise any construction to change the complexion of the subject plot. Notice also be issued to Advocate General Sindh and Mr. Manzoor Ahmed, Principal Law Officer of CDGK."
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner took us to the various orders passed by the High Court and submitted that the petitioner was prima facie entitled to possession of the suit property and the trial Judge in the High Court had passed a number of orders for taking coercive action against encroachment and taking over possession of the property. That even the impugned order is being violated by the contesting respondents who have started changing the complexion of the property.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that the impugned order has been superseded by a number of substantial orders passed by the trial Judge that in any case, the matter is still before the trial Court which is competent to pass any order on the applications pending before it.
4. The petition has been filed against an interim order passed on the application of the respondents filed by them before a Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh. The order was subject to notice to all the respondents before the Court. We need not dilate upon the merits of the arguments raised as the matter is still pending before the High court. The petitioner has the remedy of applying to the Court for withdrawal of the impugned interim order on merits as well as on account of its alleged violation. This Court is slow in interfering with the interlocutory orders, much less with interim orders. In the two judgments, Yousaf Ali v. Muhammad Aslam Zia (PLD 1958 SC 104) and Waqar Ali v. The State (PLD 2011 SC 181), cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court intervened in intorlocutory and not interim orders and at the same time acknowledged that such intervention can only be made in exceptional circumstances. In the latter case of 'Waqar Ali" this Court interfered with the interlocutory order as by it the Additional Sessions Judge at the assumed jurisdiction under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 and it was found that the such assumption by the trial Court under the Act was unauthorized.
5. In view of the above, the remedy of the petitioner, if any, lies before the Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh where the respondents' appeal as well misc. applications are still pending. The petition is, therefore, dismissed and leave declined.