RUSTAM S. SIDHWA, J.---This is a petition by Khan Saeed Alain, petitioner seeking leave to appeal against the order of a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, dated 7-3-1990 refusing to order the maintenance of status quo in respect of the western half portion of plot No.21, Blue Area, Islamabad, pending the disposal of the petitioner's appeal in that Court.
2. The brief facts of the case are that Khan Saeed Alam petitioner filed a suit for specific performance against Tariq Mustafa and others respondents Nos.1 to 14 inn respect of an oral agreement for sale alleged to have been made by Tariq Mustafa respondent No.1 and Sheikh Muhammad Saeed respondent No.14, a property dealer, regarding the western half portion of plot No.21, Blue Area, Islamabad. It was submitted by the petitioner that he had paid Rs.10,00,000 and that as the respondents had refused to complete the contract but rather were intending to sell away the disputed property for a higher price, he prayed that the contract be specifically enforced or, in the alternative, that he be awarded decree for recovery of damages to the extent of Rs.30,00,000 and a further sum of Rs.50,000 against respondent No.14, an Estate Agent. The said suit was dismissed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Islamabad, on 8-2-1980. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the petitioner filed Regular First Appeal before the High Court. The petitioner also Filed a petition for the grant of status quo order pending the final disposal of the appeal, which was rejected on 7-3-1990. Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the same.
3- We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondents Nos. 2 to 13 and have also perused the record. There is no written sale agreement in the case nor any written receipts executed by Mian Muhammad Attaullah respondent No.2, or his wife Mrs. Rehana Ataullah, or any of their major children, in respect of the large payments alleged to have been made by the petitioner on their behalf. The oral sale agreement is alleged to have been executed in 1979, whereas the suit was instituted in 1985. Initially the suit was filed in respect of the eastern half portion of the disputed plot, but later amended to cover the western half portion.
The learned Judges of the Division Bench, whilst exercising their discretion against the petitioner, held that the analysis of the evidence of the parties made by the trial Court sustained the plea that the transaction was not free from blemish and that as the case was one of an agreement for sale made on behalf of respondents Nos. 2, to 13 without proper authorisation, it did not ostensibly justify the passing of a status quo order to their detriment. These observations prima facie neither appear to be illegal nor capricious. This Court normally does not interfere in interlocutory matters. However, on the basis of a proper review of the matter, the order passed by the learned Judges of the Division Bench appears to be both proper and correct and does not call for any interference. Leave is therefore refused.