1. ANWARUL HAQ, J.---This appeal by special leave of the Court is directed against an order made by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court on the 20th of May 1970, where by a revision petition filed by the respondents in the matter of art interim order made in respondent's suit was accepted.
2. The dispute in this case relates to the properties left by one Khuda Bakhsh in village Jand, Tehsil and District Bahawalpur. The appellants before us, who are his two sons, claim that the entire properties were gifted to them by their father in his life--time, as he intended to exclude his other heirs from inheritance.
3. The respondents, who are the heirs so excluded, brought a suit for challenging the validity of the gift. This suit was dismissed by the trial Court but it was decreed on appeal on the ground that the appellants had obtained the gift by undue influence. Against this decree the appellants went up to the High Court in second appeal. This was admitted for regular hearing on the 11of November 1969, and an ad interim order was also made restraining the respondents, the plaintiffs in the suit, from interfering with the possession of the appellants. Mutation pro--ceedings started by the respondents were also stayed. That appeal is still pending in the High Court.
4. The appellants, who claim that they have all along been in possession of these lands, started proceedings under section 45 of the Punjab Tenancy Act for the ejectment of the respondent No. 6, one of the tenants on the land, who is also related to the other respondents. Thereafter, the respondents filed another suit for a declaration that the appellants, taking advantage of the stay order granted by the High Court in second appeal, had wrongfully re-entered into possession and that the proceedings under section 45 of the Punjab Tenancy Act against respondent No. 6 wereth without lawful authority, as no relationship of landlord and tenant subsisted between the appellants and the said respondent No. 6. In any event, until the decision of the District Judge in first appeal was set aside, the appellants could only claim to be joint-owners of the land and could not, therefore, without joining the other co-owners, bring any proceeding for ejectment of any tenant.
5. Along with this plaint an application was also filed for an interim order for staying the ejectment proceedings. The trial Court interpreting the High Court's stay order as being merely in the nature of an order maintaining the status quo, granted the injunction prayed for, but on appeal the District Judge of Bahawalpur vacated the injunction. The respondents then went up in revision to the High Court, which has set aside the order of the District Judge and restored that of the trial Court.
6. Leave was granted in this case to examine the following contentions :----
(a) that while the High Court found fault with the learned District Judge for deciding the question of the maintainability of the suit, while dealing with the question of the issuance of a temporary injunction, it has fallen into the same error by expressing the opinion that according to the averments made in the plaint the suit was prima facie triable by the civil Court ;
(b) that the High Court has failed to notice that if the posses--sion of the appellants was maintained by the previous stay order granted by the High Court in second appeal, then the present order of injunction granted by the Civil Judge would really defeat that order of the High Court and render it nugatory; and
(c) that the High Court had no jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure to interfere with the order of the District Judge which was as order passed with jurisdiction, even if the same was erroneous.
7. While granting leave to appeal on the 22nd of October 1970, it was also directed that the interim order made by this Court on 1-7-70 shall continue to remain in operation on the same terms till the decision of this appeal. This order was to the effect that the proceedings of ejectment against respondent No. 6, Noor Muhammad, may continue in the revenue Court, but no final order shall be passed during the pendency of the appeal.
8. During the pendency of this appeal the appellants made another application on the 22nd of February 1971, for the appointment of a receiver to collect Batai from respondent No. 6, upon the allegation that the rights of the owners of the land, whoever they might be, should be protected in the meantime. This application was dismissed on the offer of the learned Advocate for the said respondent No. 6 to furnish security for the Batai share payable to the landlord to the satisfaction of the Revenue Officer, Bahawlpur. It appears that respondent No. 6, did not comply with this order, and accordingly proceedings in contempt were initiated against him at the instance of the present appellants. The respondents, however, did not appear, and in these circumstances an ex parte order was made by the Court on the 1st of December 1971, discharging the notice for contempt, but appointing a Receiver for collecting Batai from the said respondent No. 6, and selling the same at the best price available in the local market. The sale proceeds were directed to be deposited in the Treasury under a separate account subject to further orders of this Court.
9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at some length, we have come to the conclusion that it is not necessary to examine the various contentions on the basis of which special leave to appeal was granted in this case. The dispute concern only the interim arrangements to be made for the collection of Batai during the pendency of the respondents' suit in the civil Court. The order already made by this Court on the I st of December 1971, adequately protects the interests of the various contestants for the property in dispute. However, in view of the admitted position that the two appellants, as sons of the late Khuda Bakhsh would be entitled to one-half of the property, irrespective of any gift in their favour, we direct that the appellants may withdraw one-half share of the proceeds of the Batai collected and deposited in the Treasury by the Tehsildar, Bahawalpur, as Receiver of the property in terms of our order dated the 1st of December 1971. They shall be entitled to with--draw their one-half share in the future Batai as well, during the pendency of the respondent's suit in the trial Court. The remain--ing heirs of Khuda Bakhsh, who are respondents to this appeal, are allowed to withdraw one-half share in the Batai already reco--vered as well as in the future Batai on furnishing adequate security to the satisfaction of the Tehsildar, Bahawlpur, for the refund of the amount in the event of their failure in the suit. The appeal is disposed of in these terms and the parties are left to bear their own costs.