MOHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs MOHAMMAD YAQOOB AND Another
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court, which had recalled an interim stay order previously granted in a writ petition. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court acted appropriately in vacating the stay order after it was established that the respondent had already obtained possession of the disputed land prior to the issuance of the status quo order, and that the petitioner had subsequently been charged with criminal trespass under the Pakistan Penal Code. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding that the recall of the interim stay was eminently proper given the factual circumstances regarding the delivery of possession. The Court held that where possession has already been transferred to a party before an interim order of status quo is passed, the continuation of such an order is unjustified, particularly when the petitioner's conduct involves alleged criminal trespass. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, affirming the High Court's discretion in managing interim relief in writ jurisdiction.
- Whether an interim order of status quo can be maintained when possession of the disputed property has already been delivered to the respondent?
- Is the recall of an interim stay order justified when the petitioner is alleged to have committed criminal trespass on the subject property?
- Section 447, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-The High Court had granted the order of stay while admitting the writ petition to regular hearing. Respondent No. 1 therein submitted an application for vacation of stay order on the ground that the possession had already obtained by him when the interim order of status quo was passed by the High Court and that the petitioner had criminally trespassed on the land and a case under section 447, P. P. C. Had been registered against him. The writ petitioner could not deny the fact that the possession had already been delivered to respondent No. 1 but his contention before the High Court was that he was not present when the possession was delivered to the said respondent. In these circumstances, the learned Judge recalled the interim order of stay vide his judgment dated 1-11-1980. This petition is directed against the aforesaid judgment.
2. Mr. Muhammad Rafiq Khan Chohan for the petitioner and Ch. Riasat Ali, counsel for respondent No. 1, have been heard. The order of recalling the interim stay in the circumstances of the case was eminently proper and appropriate and there is absolutely no force in this petition for leave to appeal against the said order.
3. This petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed hereby.