ABDUL REHMAN vs THE THAL ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES AND Another
This appeal by special leave arose from an interim order of the Lahore High Court directing the maintenance of status quo in a property dispute involving an auction sale. The appellant, an auction-purchaser, had acquired a factory in execution proceedings against a judgment-debtor. Following the rejection of objections filed by the respondent under Order XXI, Rule 99, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the sale was confirmed and possession delivered to the appellant. Subsequently, the High Court ordered the restitution of possession to the judgment-debtor, relying on precedent. The core legal question before the Supreme Court concerned the propriety of the High Court's interim order and whether it should interfere with the executing court's refusal to restore possession while a Civil Revision was pending. The Supreme Court declined to adjudicate the merits of the interim order, holding that it was more appropriate for the High Court to expedite the final disposal of the pending Civil Revision. The Court directed the parties to appear before the High Court Registrar to secure an early hearing date, thereby rendering the appeal infructuous.
- Is it appropriate for the Supreme Court to adjudicate the legality of an interim order when the main Civil Revision remains pending in the High Court?
- Can the High Court order restitution of possession to a judgment-debtor pending the disposal of a Civil Revision regarding the validity of an auction sale?
- Rule 99, Order XXI, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Rule 94, Order XXI, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, C. 3.--The subject-matter of this appeal by special leave is the interim order passed by a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court on 14-9-1973 directing that status quo shall be maintained till the disposal of the Civil Revision (P. A. O. No. 157 of 1973). The relevant facts are: The Bank of Bahawalpur Ltd. Obtained a decree against Abdul Qayyum Khan Atif, respondent, for Rs. 1,72,650.49 from the Court of Senior Civil JLdge, Lahore. In execution of the decree by the Bank, the Thal Engineering Industries Ltd., Jauharabad, was attached and sold as the property owned by the judgment-debtor. Abdul Rehman, appellant herein, purchased the aforesaid factory at the auction sale for Rs. 77,000.
2. During the execution proceedings, The That Engineering Industries Ltd., respondent, filed objections wider rule 99, Order XXI, C. P. C. Objecting to the attachment and sale of the factory on the ground that it did not belong to the judgment-debtor the executing Court rejected the objections, confirmed the sale arid issued a certificate under rule 94, Order XXI. C. P. C. In favour of the petitioner on 10-9-1,973.
3. On the application of the appellant/auction-purchaser, a warrant for delivery of possession of the factory was issued on 13-9-1973 and possession of the factory was delivered to him on 15-9-1973.
4. Though the order for maintaining status quo was passed on 14-9-1973, it was yet to be intimated to the executing Court when, as mentioned above, possession of the factory delivered to the appellant/decree-holder. In pursuance to this order of maintenance of status quo the judgment-- debtor moved the executing Court for restitution of possession. The application was dismissed on the ground that restoration of possession could be ordered on the application by the Thal Engineering Industries Ltd., and not by the judgment-debtor.
5. The judgment-debtor then moved an application in the High Court for restitution of possession which was allowed and following the Full Bench decision in Karam A.I and others v. Raja and others (PLD 1949 Lah. 100), it was directed that possession be restored to the judgment-debtor.
6. The appellant obtained leave to appeal from the order of the High Court to consider whether the order passed by the executing Court refusing to restore possession could be interfered with by the High Court which seized with the Civil Revision, directed against the order by which the objections filed by the judgment-debtor under Order XXI, rule 99, C. P. C. Were rejected.
7. On hearing the learned counsel We are of the view that instead of dealing with the propriety or legality of an interim order passed by the High Court it is more appropriate that the High Court should dispose of the Civil Revision which will render the subject-matter of this appeal infructuous.
8. We are inclined to adopt this course as 3 years have gone by since the interim order was passed by the High Court and the Civil Revision is still pending which, at best, should have taken a few months if not a few weeks to be disposed of: We, accordingly, direct that both parties should appear before the Registrar of the High Court to obtain a date within the next fortnight for the hearing of the Civil Revision. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. Costs of this appeal will abide the final determination of the Civil Revision.