MUHAMMAD ILYAS And 4 Others vs Mst. SARDAR BEGUM (Deceased), And Other
This matter concerns an application for the vacation of an interim order passed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan on 6-11-1983. The original order had suspended the execution of the impugned judgment, conditional upon the petitioners depositing a monthly sum of Rs. 500 with the Assistant Registrar as compensation for the use and occupation of the disputed property during the pendency of the proceedings. The applicants/respondents contended that the petitioners failed to comply with this condition precedent by neglecting to deposit the required funds. The petitioners did not deny this failure to comply. Consequently, the core legal question was whether the interim suspension order should remain in force despite the petitioners' non-compliance with the court's conditional directive. The Court held that since the condition precedent for the suspension of execution was not fulfilled, the interim order could no longer be sustained. Accordingly, the Court vacated the interim order of suspension, thereby allowing the execution proceedings to proceed.
- Can an interim order suspending the execution of a judgment be vacated if the condition precedent for such suspension is not met?
- Does the failure to deposit compensation for the use and occupation of disputed property, as ordered by the court, justify the vacation of a stay order?
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.--Muhammad Akram and others (respondents) have applied for the vacation of order of this Court dated 6-11-1983, suspending the execution of the impugned judgment subject to petitioners (in the main application) depositing Rs.500 per month with the Assistant Registrar of this Court as compensation for use and occupation of the property in dispute during the pendency of the matter in this Court.
2. It has been urged by the applicants/respondents counsel that Muhammad Ilyas, etc. (petitioners in the main petition) have failed to fulfil the condition precedent and has not deposited the amount as required by this Court. This has not been denied. The interim order in question is, therefore, vacated.