1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment dated 17-3-1982 of the Lahore High Court; whereby the first civil appeal from order dated 1-3-1981 passed by a learned Civil Judge, refusing to grant temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner, during the pendency of a civil suit for specific performance filed by him, was dismissed.
2. The perusal of the impugned judgment shows that notwithstanding certain technical points which have been taken in the leave to appeal petition, on merits it is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal. However, there is a more important aspect of this matter which needs to be noticed.
3. The respondent has entered caveat with a detailed application in writing in reply to the petition for special leave to appeal. A preliminary objection has also been raised that on account of the misconduct of the petitioner, he has disentitled himself to any relief from this Court. That the facts about which there is not much factual controversy and which are strictly relevant at this stage are; that an application for execution was pending before a learned civil-Court in pursuance of orders passed by a learned Rent Controller. Although, the judgment debtor in the execution proceedings was one Imtiaz Ahmad the petitioner filed an objection petition which was overruled. The petitioner challenged the order of the executing Court before the District Court but without any success.
4. However, in the meanwhile, he had also filed a civil suit for- specific performance against the respondent on 23-4-1980. In that suit, he sought temporary injunction regarding his alleged possession. The trial Court decided the main case against him on 1-3-1981. The High Court, however, allowed the petitioner's first appeal and remanded the case for fresh decision. During remand, the petitioner again sought temporary injunction which was refused by the learned trial Court on 26-6-1980 one of the grounds being that the petitioner had no right to the grant of temporary injunction. The order dated 26-6-1981. Was assailed in the High Court through F. A. O. No. 9 of 1981. It was dismissed. The petitioner then filed a civil petition for leave to appeal in this Court on 22-3-1982. In the meanwhile, the respondent having moved the executing Court for the implementation of original order of the Rent Controller, Orders were passed on 22-3-1982 for physical delivery of possession to the respondent of the premises in question. On the same day i.e. 22-3-1982, it was represented before the learned executing Court that a telephonic message had been received from one Mr. Ashraf (from the Supreme Court) that a stay order had been granted by the Supreme Court on petition for leave to appeal filed by the petitioner. The learned executing Court adjourned the case to 25th March, 1982 for production of the copy of the order of the Supreme Court. . On that day i.e. 25-3-1982, the counsel for the judgment-debtor stated that a stay order had already been issued. (By the Supreme Court) an affidavit sworn by the petitioner was submitted in the executing Court the same day i.e. 25-3-1982, the photocopy where of submitted from the respondent's side shows, that the said affidavit was sworn on 22-3-1982. It is asserted in the affidavit of the petitioner that the Supreme Court had issued an order for maintenance of status quo. The information earlier received by the learned executing Court purported to have been sent by one Mr. Ashraf was also confirmed by the petitioner in his affidavit according to him, the Supreme Court had issued an order directing maintenance of status quo on or about 22-3-1982.
5. It is an admitted fact that the petition for leave to appeal having been moved on 22-3-1982, no order for maintenance of status quo on that day, was passed. It was fixed before a learned bench for obtaining such an order on 24-3-1982 but the same was adjourned to 27.3-1982 and for the first time, an order for the maintenance of status quo, was passed on that day. In the meanwhile, the learned executing Court, on the representations made by the petitioner in his affidavit and his counsel on 22-3-1982 and 25-3-1982, did not execute the orders passed earlier for physical eviction of the judgment-debtor occupant.
6. The petitioner remained present during the time when the facts were being stated before us. We questioned him about the affidavit dated 22-3-198 He did not deny having sworn the same, but pleaded illiteracy, presumably, in order to avoid adverse consequences. His learned counsel Ch. Abdu Rehman has also not disputed factum regarding the use of the affidavit before the learned executing Court from the side of the petitioner on 25th March, 1982. It has also not been denied that on account of the represent--ation contained in the affidavit as also made verbally on 22nd March, 1982 and 25th March, 1982, the learned trial Court could not proceed with the orders of eviction which were earlier passed on 22nd March, 1982. We are informed that the learned trial Court has issued a show cause notice to the petitioner regarding these circumstances.
7. Leaving aside the question as to whether there was any justification for the petitioner to submit the affidavit which contained absolutely incorrect information (on the plea of illiteracy or otherwise) the fact remains that this misrepresentation based on a, false information regarding proceedings o this Court, was made before the executing Court on two occasions i.e. o 22nd March and 25th March, 1982. It cannot be ignored. We, for the time being till the proceedings on the show-cause notice issued by the learned executing Court are finalised have refrained from directing initiation of criminal proceedings in accordance with law and for the time being that question is kept open. We also refrain from making any comment with regard to other actions which can be taken in the matter on administrative, judicial or other side. Be that as it may, we while upholding the preliminary objection, are of the view that even if the bearest minimum admitted facts about the affidavit and representations made on 22nd and 25th March, 1982, before the learned executing Court from the side of the petitioner, are kept in view he has disentitled himself from at least the right of audience before this Court, if not to the grant of relief. We have accordingly, not permitted .His learned counsel to address oral arguments in support of the petition. This, in the circumstances, is the least which can be done at this stage in order to prevent the abuse of the process of this Court.
8. This petition accordingly is dismissed.