ALI BAQAR NAJAFI, J. - Through this civil revision the petitioners have challenged order dated 7.5.2012 passed by the learned Appellate Court whereby it affirms order dated 29.10.2010 passed by Trial Court dismissing the application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the C.P.C., filed by the petitioners.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the filing of this civil revision are that the petitioners filed a suit for possession through partition along with other ancillary relief, pertaining to the house bearing No. 104-B, Satellite Town, Rawalpindi, which was originally allotted to their predecessor Syed Noor Muhammad Shah Bukhari on 19.8.1953. The said dispute of the house gave rise to instant suit between his legal heirs (contesting parties). An application under Order XXXIX; Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 was also filed along with the suit. The suit was contested by the respondents by filing their written statement and reply to the application filed under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The learned Trial Court dismissed the application filed under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, CPC vide its order dated 29.10.2010. Being dissatisfied with the same an appeal was preferred which too was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi vide his order dated 7.5.2012. Hence this civil revision.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that Exh. D.5 is the receipt issued by the District Allotment Committee, Satellite Town Scheme, Rawalpindi in which all the legal heirs including Syed Asghar Hussain Bokhari was also mentioned as legal heirs of Syed Noor Muhammad Shah. Further submits that the property is joint one for which the instant suit for partition was filed in which at least status quo order shall be maintained.
3. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondents has placed on record copy of order dated 30.5.2012 and suit titled "Syed Abu-ul- Hassan Bukhari, etc. Vs. Syed Muzajfar Hussain Shah, etc." whereby the suit was decreed by the learned Civil Judge to the extent that it was concluded that Syed Asghar Hussain Shah was entitled to inherit his share from his deceased father Syed Noor Muhammad Shah who died on 27.12.1958 and not beyond that. The deceased namely Asghar Hussain Bokhari never claimed his share during his life-time; therefore, civil revision rtimay be dismissed.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Admittedly, the suit is pending between the parties and the possession of the said house remained with the respondents. As to the status, whether the petitioners are entitled on the basis of share in the inheritance or on the basis of exclusive ownership is a question which will be determined by the Trial Court after recording evidence. Since the Civil Court has already declared the petitioners as heirs of late Syed Asghar Hussain Shah, who is entitled to inherit the property through his deceased father, namely, Syed Noor Hussain Shah, therefore, it will be appropriate that the property may not be further alienated till the disposal of the srfsuit for partition. With this observation this civil revision is disposed of.