ALAMDAR HUSSAIN Versus MUHAMMAD RAMZAN

ORDER

1. ANWARUL HAQ, J.‑ This petition is barred ‑by 126 days. In the application for condonation of delay, it is submitted that the petitioner had fallen ill in the month of December 1974 arid was advised complete rest for a period of six months, which expired in Jane 1975. and he filed the present petition on the 26th of June 1975. This application is supported by a medical certificate dated the Ist of January 1974 to the effect that the petitioner was suffering from sciatica of both legs and had been advised medical rest for at least six months.

2. We do not regard this explanation as satisfactory. We find that the judgment of the High Court was delivered on the 19th of December 1974, and an application for a certified copy thereof was made on the same day. The copy was ready on 2‑1‑75 and its delivery was taken by, or on behalf of the petitioner on 6‑1‑75. It will thus appear that on 6‑1‑75 some body was acting on behalf of the petitioner, and no season hay hems shown as to why the same Person could not precut the, matter of instituting the present petition. Further, we find that the disease from which the petitioner was said to be suffering namely, sciatica in the legs, was not such as preclude him completely from giving instructions for the filing of this petition. The petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed on the ground that it is badly petition is, barred by time.

3. Even otherwise, we do not sec any merit in this petition, which is directed against an order passed by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court on 19‑12‑1974 in revision, upholding, an order of the trial Court dated the 5th of December 1972 granting a temporary injunction in favour of, the plaintiff‑respondents, directing tee present petitioner not to disturb their possession of the disputed land save in accordance with law. This order was upheld iii appeal by the learned District Judge by his order dated the 12th of September 1974. All the Courts below have observed that there is in existence a mutation of sale under which the property in dispute purports to have been sold by the petitioner in favour of the respondents, and they claim, possession under this mutation. The petitioner is contending that the mutation was attested as a result of fraud, and possession was also obtained by the respondents in a similar manner. These contentions have still to be examined during the trial of the suit. At this stage, the plaintiffs apparently have a prima facie case to urge, and the balance of convenience also lay in their favour.

4. As a result, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

5. Petition dismissed.