Mst. ZAITOON AND Another vs FARZAND ALI AND 8 Other
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal concerning the allotment of agricultural lands in the district of Multan. The core legal question involves whether a petitioner who violates a status quo order passed by the High Court during pending writ proceedings remains entitled to discretionary constitutional relief, and whether a pendente lite purchaser of the disputed property can challenge the High Court's order. The Supreme Court held that a petitioner who commits an act of highhandedness by alienating disputed property in direct violation of a stay order disentitles herself to any discretionary relief from the court. The Court further held that a purchaser pendente lite who was not a party to the original writ petition lacks locus standi to challenge the High Court's order and purchases the property at his own peril. The key principle laid down is that interference with the due course of justice through the breach of a court's interim injunction bars a litigant from obtaining discretionary remedies.
- Does the violation of a status quo order by a petitioner disentitle her to discretionary relief in a writ petition?
- Does a pendente lite purchaser have locus standi to challenge an order passed in a writ petition to which they were not a party?
- At whose peril does a person purchase property that is subject to pending litigation and interim stay orders?
1. FAZLE-AKBAR, J.-The dispute in this case is with respect to allotment of agricultural lands in village Rana Wahan in the district of Multan.
2. The petitioner Zaitoon moved a writ petition in the High Court against the orders of the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner. A learned Single Judge while admitting the petition on 28-11-63 ordered at the instance of the petitioner maintenance of status quo till its disposal. On 24-10-63 the petitioner in violation of the above stay order sold by a registered deed the disputed land to one, Muhammad Luqman. The said fact was brought to the notice of the Court at the time of hearing of the petition and the learned Judges while dismissing the petition observed :- "This is an act of extreme highhandedness and the petitioner has disentitled herself to any discretionary relief from this Court . . . . . We, therefore, do not go into the detailed facts of the case and dismiss the petition on this ground."
3. Mr. Siddiq, the Senior Attorney, has found it difficult to support her action. Her conduct really amounted to interference with due course of justice in a pending proceedings. She must consider herself lucky that proceedings in contempt were not drawn against her.
4. The purchaser is petitioner No. 2 in this petition and this Court has given him permission to appear at the hearing of the petition subject to all just exceptions.
5. Mr. Siddiq has contended that the purchaser should not be penalised for the conduct of the vendor Mst. Zaitoon.
6. He was not a party to the writ petition and as such he has no locus standi to challenge the order of the High Court. He pur--chased the disputed property at his own peril and he therefore must seek