' CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF, J.---Paras. 2 and 3 of Leave Grant Order dated 4-12-1995 read thus: "2. Respondent No,1 claiming to be the owner of 1 Kanal, 4 Marlas in Khasra No,4854 (previous No,3751) situated in Mirpur, Tehsil and District Abbottabad, in Suit No,601 instituted on 28-7-1993, sought declaration that Mutation No,4602 attested on 23-9-1991, whereby 9-1/2 Marlas of land out of said number Khasra is shown to have been transferred in favour of petitioners, is illegal and liable to be cancelled. Alongwith the plaint respondent filed an application for grant of temporary injunction to the effect that petitioner be restrained from interference or encroachment upon the suit-land owned and possessed by her. The suit and the application both were contested by the petitioners. During the pendency of the stay application ' Bailiff' of the Court was sent on the spot to see the stage of construction which was carried out by the petitioners and there was also appointed Local Commissioner for inspection of the spot. The learned trial Judge on consideration of such evidence dismissed the application for temporary injunction vide order dated 6-2-1995.
During the pendency of that application respondent had also filed an application for contempt of Court alleging that the petitioners have violated the status quo order. Thereupon respondent No,1 filed an appeal before the learned District Judge which too was dismissed on 19-3-1995.
Respondent then challenged the orders in Civil Revision No,70 of 1995 in the High Court. The learned High Court set aside the judgments and orders of the Courts below and held that the trial Court was wrong in not confirming the interim status quo order which amounted to endorsement to unlawful act of the petitioner and that the Appellate Court also failed to appreciate the case in its proper perspective. It was, therefore, ordered as under:-- ' Since the entire construction has been made by outrageously disgracing the order of status quo by respondents 2 and 3 deliberately therefore, they have to remove the unlawful construction and have to restore the original position as existed on the day when the order of status quo was issued.
In case they fail to remove the superstructure within two months, they shall be sent to civil prison for one month and the property shall stand attached for securing compliance and execution of this order.
"3. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent had alleged to be the owner in possession of a specific plot out of Khasra number which is recorded as the joint property of both the parties in the Revenue Record. It has not been proved so far that there had been private partition between the shareholder(s) and that the respondent was sole owner of the plot in question, which has yet to be determined by the Court while disposing of the main case on merits. The order passed on the application for temporary injunction has actually disposed of the entire case affecting the merits of the case. The contentions raised require consideration. Leave is granted to consider the same.
' Status quo to continue."
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. After arguing the cause for some time, both the learned counsel consented to the disposal of the appeal with a direction to the parties to maintain status quo until the disposal of the main suit by the trial Court/Senior Civil Judge, Abbottabad within a period of 4-months from the date for which this Court directs the parties to appear before the trial Court.
3. We are also inclined to the view that expeditious disposal of the suit, in the facts and circumstances of this case, will be in order.
4. In view of the above, the instant appeal is disposed of with a direction to the learned Senior Civil Judge, Abbottabad to either decide the suit himself or assign the same to any other Civil Judge of competent jurisdiction within 4 months from 12-4-2001, on which date the parties shall appear before the learned Senior Civil Judge. The trial Court shall call upon the parties to produce their respective witnesses on their own responsibility to facilitate the conclusion of trial on or before 11-8- 2001. It is further directed that all the Miscellaneous Applications pending before the trial Court shall be disposed of alongside the main suit. Status quo shall be maintained meanwhile.
5. With the above observation, the appeal stands disposed of. No costs.