Mst. Sher Bano vs Nazir Ahmed and others
This civil appeal arose from a judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which had allowed a civil revision application on the basis that a status quo order had not been extended, leading to the dispossession of the appellant. The core legal question concerned the propriety of the High Court's decision to allow the revision and effectively sanction the dispossession of the appellant despite the ongoing litigation. Upon hearing the parties, the Supreme Court noted that the appellant had been dispossessed during the pendency of the matter. Consequently, the parties reached a consensus to resolve the dispute by directing the Trial Court to conclude the proceedings within a specified timeframe. The Court held that the Trial Court must decide the suit within three months. Furthermore, the Court laid down the principle that if the suit is ultimately decreed in favour of the appellant, the respondent is obligated to restore possession immediately, failing which the Trial Court is empowered to pass necessary orders to enforce such delivery of possession.
- Can a Trial Court be directed to conclude proceedings within a specific timeframe to resolve a dispute over possession?
- Is a respondent obligated to restore possession if a suit is decreed in favour of the appellant after an alleged illegal dispossession?
- Does the failure to extend a status quo order justify the dispossession of a party during pending litigation?
ORDER
1. ' KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, J. --- This appeal with leave of the Court granted on 21.7.2011. against the judgment dated 3.5.2011 of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi whereby Civil Revision No. 7 of 2010 was allowed on the ground that status quo order earlier granted was not extended on many occasions by the Court and as such the respondents right' dispossessed the appellant from the property' in question without taking into consideration the law laid down by this Court in the cases of Bakhtawar, etc. v. Amin, etc. (1980 SCM R 89) and Raja Talat Mahmood v, lsmat Ehtishamui Haq (1999 SCM R 2215).
2. ' After arguing the case at some length and since the appellant was dispossessed on 23.8.2009, both the parties jointly requested that the appeal may be disposed of with direction to the Trial Court to conclude the proceedings and pass the judgment after hearing the parties and regarding the evidence within a period of three months from the date of this order and in case the suit is decreed in favour of appellant then the respondent Nazir Ahmed will deliver the possession to the appellant immediately, failing which the Court may pass an order for delivering the possession.
3. ' We have taken into consideration arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the respondent and dispose of the listed appeal in the above terms and direct. the concerned Trial Court to decide the suit on or before 01.3.2012 and in case the suit is decreed then to restore the possession immediately in favour of the appellant.