2011 YLR 2560 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Full text

GHULAM QADIR VS Sharimati SADORI BAIE Civil Procedure Code --Order IX of C.P.C. Appearance of Parties and Consequence of Non-Appearance--9 , Constitutional petition--TERM , Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979--22 , S. 22---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.IX, R.9---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Execution of ejectment order, pendency of---Application for restoration of first constitutional petition along with stay application dismissed for non-appearance of tenant---eviction of tenant from premises by Executing Court in absence of stay order---Filing of second constitutional petition by tenant during pendency of restoration application after his eviction from premises---Validity---Such application was still pending, thus, tenant ought to have pressed whatever reliefs he wanted in first constitutional petition and not to file second constitutional petition aimed at to abuse process of law---Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, being a special law, was enacted for quick and expeditious disposal of cases between landlord and tenant---Tenant for last nine (9) years had kept landlord entangled into litigation for one reason or the other---Tenant would not be allowed to prolong proceedings by having decision in fragments, which would be nothing but sheer abuse of constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---Tenant by filing second constitutional petition sought to achieve a thing to which he was trot entitled directly---Such manner of achieving things in an indirect manner would always be discouraged, particularly when such approach was to detriment of other party, who was found entitled thereto through process of law-Mere filing of proceedings before a high forum to challenge decision of subordinate forum would not operate as a halting factor of such decision, unless same was specifically stayed by higher forum---Restoration application by itself would not bring life into dead proceedings, unless life was put therein by court in shape of its restoration---Nothing was pending before High Court and no stay order was operating in favour of tenant on date when he was ejected from premises by Executing Court---Executing Court could not go behind decree by enlarging or curtailing time allowed therein---Executing Court was bound to execute decree after expiry of time allowed therein---High Court dismissed second constitutional petition along with restoration application with cost of Rs. 10,000.