MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J.-By this order I propose to dispose of C.M.No. 1172/92, C.M.No. 1239/92, C.M.No. 1284/92, W.P.No. 3715/92 and W.P.No. 3957/92 as these are inter connected and relate to the same subject- matter.
2. The facts in brief giving rise to these petitions are that Mr. A.R. Khan (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) on the one hand and Mr. P.N. Boga and others hereinafter referred to as the respondents), on the other, litigated between themselves about transfer of property No. SE-12-R-6 and 8, situate at 1 Canal Bank, Lahore upto the level of the Supreme Court of Pakistan. Ultimately the dispute was resolved on 18.12.1986 in favour of the petitioner. Somewhere in 1966, during the pendency of litigation between the parties, the petitioner filed application for ejectment of the respondents from the property in dispute. The learned Rent Controller taking cognizance of the pendency of the litigation between the parties vide order dated 27.12.1973 adjourned the ejectment proceedings sine die. After the final decision of the case by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the learned Rent Controller pursuant to an application filed by the petitioner, revived the ejectment proceedings against the respondents. On 30.5.1991, he accepted the ejectment petition and directed ejectment of the respondents. The learned Additional District Judge, Lahore on 27.11.1991 affirmed the order in appeal. The respondents being aggrieved against those orders filed W.P.No. 11694/91. Which was dismissed on 11.4.1992 by this Court.
3. It is significant to point out that on the dismissal of the writ petitioner neither the petitioner prayed for nor this Court suo motu allowed time to the respondents for vacation of the premises.
On 19.4.1992 the petitioner armed with warrants of possession issued in execution of the ejectment order carried out eviction through the bailiff of the Court and with the assistance of the Police. Mrs. P.N. Boga, one of the respondents, on the same day at about 4.40 p.m. Presented an application (C.M.No. 1172/92) before the Hon'ble Chief Justice praying for suspension of the order dated 11.4.1992 so as to enable her to approach the Supreme Court for availing the legal remedy against the afore-said order. The application was directed to be placed before me for disposal. It was then presented at my residence at 5.30 p.m. Whereupon I passed following order: "Put up before me on 20.4.1992 in Court. Status quo meanwhile."
On 20.4.1992, order was passed to the following effect:- "Heard the petitioner. Notice to the opposite side for 22.4.1992.
Requisition the relevant file for that date. Status quo to continue till then."
The perusal of the reports made by the bailiff and Hakim Ali, S.I. Who accompanied him shows that the possession of the disputed property was delivered to the petitioner decree-holder on 19.4.1992.
Report Roznamcha No. 17 recorded on 19.4.1992 at 5.30 p.m. By Hakim Ali, S.I. Who was accompanied by the bailiff shows that the warrants of possession issued by Syed Nasir Ali Shah, Rent Controller, Lahore in respect of the disputed property were duly executed and possession of the property delivered to the petitioner. Similarly the bailiff also made report regarding delivery of possession of the property in dispute to the petitioner in execution of the warrants. His report about the delivery of possession of the property in dispute on 19.4.1992 contains the signatures of the witnesses in whose presence the vacant possession of the house in question was delivered to the petitioner.
4. On 25.4.1992 the respondents filed application under section 151, C.P.C for restoration of possession of the house in question on the basis of order of status quo passed by this Court on 19.4.1992. In para 11 of the application it was mentioned that in view of the stay by the Court the respondents were entitled restoration of possession of the property in question so as to avail legal remedy in the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The prayer made in the application was that the possession of the property in dispute be handed back to them in the interest of justice and fairplay.
5. On 4.5.1992 another application (C.M.No. 1284/92) was filed by them alleging therein that the Senior Police Officers held inquiry and in obedience to the orders of this Court passed on 19.4.1992 at 5.30 p.m. Restored the position existing on the site at the time of issuance of the stay order.
Prayer was modified to the extent of the restoration of possession of two rooms unlawfully taken away from them in the garb of the order of the Rent Controller.
6. On 27.4.1992 the petitioner also filed W.P.No. 3715/92 against the police officers who illegally took control of the disputed property and sought direction for their removal from the premises in dispute. One of the respondents namely Mrs. S.N. Alam on 4.5.1992 also filed W.P.No. 3957/92 against the Rent Controller, the Bailiff, the Additional District Judge, Hakim Ali S.L, Akhtar Mahmood S.H.O, and the petitioner seeking declarations to the effect that the execution application was premature, the orders passed by the Rent Controller on 14.4.1992 and 15.4.1992 of no legal effect, the reports made by the bailiff as well as the Police Officer, unlawful, with a prayer to direct the petitioner to restore possession of two rooms and further to allow reasonable time for handing over the vacant possession of the house to the petitioner in case she loses her legal battle before the Supreme Court.
7. At this stage it is important to mention that the Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal filed against the impugned order dated 11.4.1992 passed by this Court dismissing writ petition was upheld by the Supreme Court as disclosed by learned counsel for the respondents.
8. The facts enumerated hereinbefore give rise to following points for determination:-
(i) Whether on 19.4.1992, at 5.30 p.m. When order of status quo was passed by this Court, the possession of the disputed property stood delivered to the petitioner?
(ii) Whether the orders passed by the Rent Controller in execution and the reports made by the bailiff and police officer are assailable in writ jurisdiction?
9. As regards the first point, the examination of the bailiffs report and copy of Report No. 17 of Daily Diary made by the Police clearly establish that before 5.30 p.m. The possession of the disputed property stood delivered to the petitioner. This factum finds ample support from the contents of the application moved by the respondents themselves seeking restoration of possession of the disputed premises.
10. As far as the next point, it is true that the orders of the Rent Controller passed in execution proceedings are appealable, but the learned counsel for respondents himself sought their resolution by this Court. In order to shorten the controversy these orders have been examined and ostensibly disclose no legal infirmity therein, the execution proceedings initiated after the dismissal of appeal before the District Court and Constitutional petition before this court cannot be construed to be premature although launched with undue haste.
11. The Police Officer who accompanied the bailiff and made report in the Roznamcha at 5.30 p.m.
After completion of the execution proceedings acted in performance of his official duty and cannot be deemed to have acted mala fidely. The order of status quo passed by this Court at 5.30 p.m.
After delivery of possession rather enured for the benefit of the petitioner.
12. Similarly in my opinion, the Police Officers who subsequently took control of the premises although misconstrued the order of this Court, yet it appears that they also acted bona fidely to have the status quo order passed by this Court implemented. It is, however, made clear that they had no jurisdiction to restore possession of the portion of the property as they were required only to maintain status quo as it existed on the spot. In these circumstances the writ petitions filed by the petitioner as well as one of the respondents merit no further action and are accordingly disposed of.
13. As regards C.M.No. 1172/92, one of the respondents (Mrs. S.N. Alam) who prayed therein for sometime to approach the Supreme Court did file Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal against the order of this Court dated 11.4.1992, and after the dismissal thereof, this application has become infructuous and is accordingly dismissed.
14. Similarly C.M.No. 1239/92 seeking restoration of possession and C.M.No. 1284/92 seeking amendment thereof have also become infructuous after dismissal of the Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal by the Supreme Court.
15. The local Police Officers who took control of the premises presumably in implementation of the order of status quo passed by this Court on 19.4.1992 shall forthwith withdraw themselves from the premises in dispute after delivering vacant possession thereof to the petitioner as he would be deemed to be in possession of it, with effect from 19.4.1992, when he actually came into possession through legal process of law.
All the aforesaid petitions, therefore, stand disposed of in terms indicated above with no order as to costs.