MUHAMMAD ASHRAF Versus ABDUL HAMEED

1. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J .‑‑The Petitioner, a tenant under orders of eviction, seeks leave to appeal against an order of the High Court of Sind dated 8‑8‑1988 whereby while entertaining his Application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure in a rent case for further adjudication, stay of the A execution proceedings was refused observing as follows:‑‑

2. "This is an application for stay of the execution of the eviction order. The or appeal was disposed of by consent order dated 9‑6‑1987 whereby the appellant was allowed time upto 15‑6‑1988 to vacate the premises. Now he seeks stay of that order. I am not inclined to stay the execution of order because the application under Section 12(2), C.P.C. was filed after enjoying the time allowed by the consent order.

3. I, therefore, dismiss this application."

4. Against this Order the Petitioner seeks leave to appeal.

5. It appears from the record that a compromise Order was passed by the High Court on 9‑8‑1987 in the following terms:‑‑

6. "By consent this appeal is disposed of as follows:‑‑

7. The appellant shall vacate the premises by 15th June, 1988 and, if he fails to vacate the premises by the said date, he will be liable to be evicted without notice of execution application. The appellant shall continue to comply with the order of the Controller and, if he fails to comply with the order notwithstanding time allowed, he will be liable to be evicted forthwith. This order also disposes of application for interim relief."

8. When, after the stipulated period, Execution Application was filed for evicting of the Petitioner from the premises, he filed an Application under section 12(2) of the C.P.C. challenging the compromise order of eviction dated 9‑8‑1987 on the sole ground that the counsel who entered into compromise was not authorised by him to do so.

9. Apart from the fact that the allegation being restricted to the counsel and not to the party or to the proceedings, the learned .fudge in the High Court has rightly observed that he was not satisfied by the delay which showed that after enjoying the benefits under the Order, the Petitioner thought fit to challenge it only when he was obliged to vacate the premises. The Petitioner had by his own conduct disentitled himself to the interim relief and was rightly so denied.

10. No ground is made out. Hence, leave to appeal is refused.

11. M.Y.H./A‑351/S Petition dismissed.