' MIR HAZAR KHAN KHOSO, J:---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order dated 9-3- 1995 passed by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi.
2. The petitioner filed suit for possession and mesne profits in respect of a House in Islamabad against the respondent in the Court of Civil Judge, Islamabad. He filed written statement. Issues were framed accordingly. The parties led evidence. However, on 11-12-1994 the learned Civil Judge decreed the suit in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent. The respondent filed appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Islamabad, who on 16-2-1995 dismissed it. The respondent filed revision petition before the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi.. On 23-2-1995 the revision was admitted for regular hearing. Besides, it suspended the operation of the impugned judgments. In spite of stay order the Civil Judge issued warrant for taking over possession or the house from the petitioner with the help of police. On 23-2-1995 the petitioner was ousted from the house. The violation of the stay order was brought to the notice of the High Court, who on 9-3-1995 after hearing the parties directed the petitioner to hand over the vacant possession of the house to the respondent. Against the above said order the petitioner has come before this Court.
3. Mr. M. Kowkab Iqbal, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that besides possession of the premises a decree for money was also passed in the favour of the petitioner, but the revisional/appellate Courts without ordering for depositing of the decretal amount entertained revision/appeal and granted stay. He contended that the stay order in respect of decree regarding money was illegal. He relied upon the cases reported in 1983 SCM R 643 and 1968 SCM R 160.
4. However, we have perused the record of the case and the judgments passed by the three Courts below. It is admitted position that while admitting the revision petition, the High Court had stayed the operation of the impugned judgments and decrees. Issuance of the writ for dispossession of the respondent from the house on face of it is legal. In such view of the fact, the learned High Court had issued direction to the petitioner to hand over vacant possession of the house. There is nothing wrong with the impugned order. However, in the situation, as such, the learned counsel for the petitioner requested that the High Court may be directed to dispose of the revision petition without further delay. There is substance in his contention. In the circumstances discussed herein above, there is no merit in the petition which is dismissed. Leave to appeal is refused. However, the High Court is directed to dispose of the revision petition filed by the respondent immediately after the summer vacation.