1. ' In this revision application orders, dated 8th July 1981, by the learned 19th Civil Judge, Karachi ordering status quo to be maintained in the proceedings under section 12(2) of C.P.C. and an order passed in appeal against this order are challenged. These orders came to be passed in the following circumstances:- ' A house constructed on plot No,5-C,9/15 Nazimatad, belonged to one Mr. Muhammad Bux who died on (not given). Mr:;. Fatima the present applicant is widow of late Muhammad Bux Ansari. She claimed the ownership of this house on the basis of a gift in her favour by her husband.
2. Respondent No,2 Abdul Sattar who is the adopted son of Muhammad Bux also claimed share in the property. This lady filed suit No,1955 of 1978 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Karachi praying for declaration and injunction against respondent No,2. This suit was compromised between the applicant and respondent No,2 Abdul Satter. A compromise decree was passed on 19th September, 1978.
3. ' Respondent No,1 Ahmed Khan who claims to be one of the many heirs of late Muhammad Bux on coming to know of this decree felt aggrieved, appeared as intervener and moved application under section 12(2) of C.P.C. in the Court of learned 19th Civil Judge who had passed the decree, dated 19th September, 1978 praying that "On the facts and grounds disclosed in the accompanying affidavit, that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set aside the decree passed on 10-9-1978 which decree has been obtained by the plaintiff above-named through fraudulent means, otherwise the interest of the applicant shall seriously jeopardize". This intervener Ahmed Khan also moved an application under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2 read with section 151, C.P.C. praying that "This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the further operation of decree, dated 19-9-1978 passed in the aforesaid matter and direct the plaintiff, her men, agents, nominees, administrators, executors or any other person or persons, to maintain status quo in respect of the property house on plot No, 5- C, 9/15, Nazimabad, Karachi till the final disposal of the application under section 12(2), C.P.C. filed by this applicant".
4. ' On this application which was accompanied by a supporting affidavit an interim order of status quo was issued with notice to the original plaintiff in the suit. The matter came up for hearing after notice to the parties and impugned order which is now being challenged in revision has been passed on 8-7-1981. Under this order the learned Judge, has granted the application under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. and ordered the original plaintiff to maintain status quo till the disposal of the application under section 12(2). Relevant part of the order may be reproduced: "I heard the counsels appearing from both the sides and have carefully gone through the material on record. It is admitted position that suit for permanent injunction was only filed against the defendant, but compromise decree is obtained in nature of Settlement of the title. Naturally it has affected the other heirs if any and intervener claims to be one of the legal heir of the deceased, therefore, for purpose of his application he has got arguable case. No doubt mutation has been made in the name of the plaintiff in the record of K.D.A. yet alienation of the property during pendency of disposal of application under section 12 (2), C.P.C. will give rise to multiplicity of the litigation. At present on basis of documents attached with the application, the intervener has got prima facie case and balance of convenience also lies in favour of non-alienation of the property.
5. The irreparable loss is likely to be suffered by the plaintiff in case of disposal of the property.
6. Accordingly, application of the intervener is allowed and plaintiff is directed to maintain the status quo till final disposal of the application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Consequently application of the plaintiff under Order XXXIX, rule 4, C.P.C. is dismissed".
7. ' The original plaintiff, who in the meantime on the strength of decree obtained on 19th September, 1978 had obtained mutation in her favour in the record of K.D.A. felt aggrieved and filed C.M.A.
8. 176/81. This appeal was dismissed by the learned IVth Additional District Judge by his order, dated 8-5-1983. This Revision has now been filed by the applicant/plaintiff questioning the validity of the above two orders, dated 8-7-1981 and dated 8-5-1983 Mr. Mokarim the learned counsel for the plaintiff has argued this revision on behalf of the applicant. The main argument of the learned counsel is that the plaintiff had failed to make out a case for exercise of power under Order XXXIX, rule 1, C.P.C. and the Court has erred in passing this order. Learned counsel has taken me to the application as well as to the supporting affidavit and on his reading of these documents the requirements of Order XXXIX, rule 12, C.P.C. are not fulfilled. The appellate order, dated 8-5-1983 proceeds on different premises. The appeal filed by applicant has been dismissed by this order on some other grounds. Learned counsel has not addressed me on any other grounds except on the question that no order under Order XXXIX, rule 112 could be passed in this case as the application of Intervener respondent is lacking in elements which could form the base for exercise of power under rules 1 and 2 of Order XXXIX, C.P.C.
9. ' Sometime it so happens that parties copy the statutory provisions of the rule without stating the facts. This has been done in this case. But in order to do substantial justice in the case, one has to see the prayer in the contest of the whole situation. There could be no hard and fast rule how an application should be worded. If the applicant succeeds in making out a case for grant of interim relief, the Court should not reject the request out right because the draft man of the application has not employed certain phrases in consonance with the text of the rule. If on study of the whole case the Court feels that ends of justice require that the applicant should be given some protection the property involved should be saved from waste or damage or the mischief sought to be supposed is likely to render the main relief infructuous if it is not suppressed at the interim stage, then the' injunction must be granted.
6. In such a situation to make a search for certain set phrases in the application' and closing eyes to the genuine needs of the applicant reflected in the case, would mean to care more for form than substance.
10. ' In the present case, the applicant after obtaining the collusive decree, has secured mutation in her favour and may proceed to do away with the property before the respondent/intervener has been able to open up his case in Court. To prevent, this possibility becoming a reality, the Court has simply ordered that "Status quo should be maintained". I do not see any illegality in this order and I feel that no interference is called for in revision jurisdiction of this Court. The revision, is therefore, dismissed.
11. Revision .