SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.---The petitioners are seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of a learned Division Bench of the High Court of Sind dated 19-3-1994 whereby Constitution Petition No:D-2 of 1988 filed by the respondents was accepted and the order dated 11-10-1987 passed by the Additional District Judge, Hyderabad, in Civil Revision Application No.46 of 1987 was declared as without lawful authority and of no legal consequences.
2. The facts relevant for decision of the present petition are that predecessor, of the respondents instituted a Civil Suit No.883, of 1992 against petitioners' predecessor seeking relief of permanent injunction, declaration and mesne profit on 4-8-1962. While the above suit was still pending; an ejectment application was filed before, the Rent Controller against the petitioners predecessor by respondents' predecessor on the ground of default in payment of rent. The defence of petitioners' predecessor in the rent case was struck of by the Rent Controller on account of non-compliance of the rent order passed in the case and they were accordingly directed to be evicted for the suit premises. The case of the respondents is that as a consequence of the order passed by the Rent Controller in the ejectment case, the predecessor of the petitioners was evicted from the suit premises and possession was handed over to the predecessor of the respondent on 17-9-1970.
However, the petitioners' predecessor in between the night of 17th and 18th of September, 1970 again trespassed on the suit land which led to the registration of F.I.R. No. 100 of 1970 and filing of a direct complaint under section 457, P.P.C. By the respondents' predecessor against the petitioners' predecessor. It is further the case of the respondents that in order to countract the criminal case instituted by their predecessor against petitioners' predecessor, the petitioners' predecessor instituted Suit No.428 of 1970 seeking declaration that they were owners of the suit land and that the order of the Rent Controller passed against them directing their ejectment was without jurisdiction. The plaint in the suit was rejected under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C by the trial Court and this order was upheld up, to High Court. It further appears that the predecessor of the respondents also tiled proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. And obtained order of attachment of the suit land.
In the proceedings filed under section 145, Cr.P.C. The S.D.M. Passed a final order on 25-7-1979 whereby he directed that the possession of the suit land , be handed over to the respondents' predecessor. This order of the S.D.M. Was challenged by the petitioners' predecessor in Criminal Revision Application which was allowed and possession was ordered to be restored to the petitioners. The respondent challenged the order passed in Criminal Revision Application directing restoration of the possession to the petitioners in Constitution Petition before the High Court of Sind which was dismissed and a petition before this Court against the order of the High Court was not pressed. On 29-10-1984 the respondents instituted Suit No.300 of 1984 for declaration and injunction and in that suit an interim order was also passed directing parties to maintain status quo. The respondents moved an application in Suit No.300 of 1984 complaining violation of the status quo order by the petitioners and prayed for action against them under Order XXXIX, Rule 2(3), C.P.C. They also filed another application under section 151, C.P.C. Praying that the possession of the suit land be restored to them. The application filed by the respondents under Order XXXIX, Rule 2(3), C.P.C. Was allowed by the trial Court and possession was ordered to be restored to the respondents on 12-9-1987. Against the order of trial Court directing restoration of possession the petitioners filed a Civil Revision Application before the District Court which was allowed on 11-10- 1987. The order passed in revision was finally challenged in writ petition which was accepted by the impugned order against which present petition has been filed.
3. In seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of the learned Division Bench of High Court of Sind, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that on the date Suit No.300 of 1994 was instituted by the petitioners, the petitioners were in possession of the suit land as is evident from the order passed in proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. And there was no evidence on record to the contrary to show that the petitioners were either dispossessed or that they voluntarily surrendered the suit land to the respondents after they were restored possession in the proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. It is, accordingly, contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in these circumstances the status quo order granted by the trial Court in Suit No.300 of 1994 maintained the possession of the party which was already in possession of the land on the date of the filing of the suit and, therefore, the order of restoration passed under section 151, C.P.C. Was wholly without jurisdiction. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in fact Suit No.300 of1984 was totally misconceived as no prayer for possession in the said suit was made against the petitioners although according to undisputed evidence on record, the petitioners of the suit land. It is additionally contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Suit No.688 of 1962 instituted by respondents' predecessor was finally dismissed by the trial Court on 31-8-1994 which also prima facie established that the petitioners were in possession of the suit land. In these circumstances, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the order of the learned Judge of the High Court directing restoration of the possession while exercising jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution was wholly unwarranted and against the evidence on record. The contentions raised by the learned counsel require' examination and we, accordingly, grant leave to consider the same. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.