ABDUL HAMID vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SARGODHA AND ANOTHER
This matter concerns an application filed by the respondent, the transferee of the property in dispute, seeking the vacation of a stay order previously granted by the Supreme Court in favor of the petitioner. The stay order, issued on November 16, 1972, was conditional upon the petitioner depositing up-to-date rent with the Rent Controller. The respondent alleged that the petitioner failed to comply with this specific condition. Despite receiving notice of the application in June 1974, the petitioner failed to challenge the respondent's assertion or provide evidence of compliance. The Court observed that the petitioner had sufficient time to obtain instructions or respond to the allegations. Consequently, finding the respondent's claim of non-compliance unchallenged, the Court held that the condition upon which the stay was granted had not been met. The Court decided to allow the respondent's application and vacated the stay order previously granted. The principle established is that a conditional stay order granted by the Court may be vacated if the beneficiary fails to adhere to the stipulated conditions.
- Can a stay order granted by the Supreme Court be vacated if the petitioner fails to comply with the conditions imposed?
- What is the consequence of a petitioner failing to challenge an allegation of non-compliance with a court order?
ORDER
1. ' SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.-By an order dated the 16th of November, 1972, this Court granted leave to appeal in Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No, 264 of 1972, and also passed a stay order in favour of the petitioner subject to deposit by him of uptodate rent with the Rent Controller.
2. ' The present application is by respondent Ghulam Sabir, the transferee of the property in dispute.
3. He has complained that the petitioner has failed to comply with the directions of the Court regarding deposit of up-to-date rent, and the aforesaid order should, therefore, be rescinded. On the 11th of June, 1974, a notice of this application was directed to be issued to the petitioner.
4. Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate on Record, has appeared on behalf of the petitioner. At first he said that he had no instructions in the matter. Later, however, he asked for time to ascertain the correct position.
5. ' As noticed already a notice was directed to be issued to him in June 1974, and he had, therefore, plenty of time to obtain instructions from the petitioner. The respondent's statement about non- compliance with this Court's order remains unchallenged.
6. ' We have no other alternative but to accept the respondent's application and vacate the order of stay passed by this Court on the 16th of November, 1972.
7. ' The application is accordingly allowed but without any order as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.