ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH,

CIRCUIT COURT, HYDERABAD.

R.A. No.195 of 2012.

DATE           ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

            1. For hearing of C.M.A. No.1174 of 2012.

            2. For order on office objection and reply of the advocate for applicant.

            3. For Katcha peshi.

            4. For hearing of C.M.A. No.881 of 2012.

31.03.2014.

            Mr. Rashid Raees, advocate for the applicant.

            Respondents No.3 and 4 present in person.

            =

            Through instant civil revision application, the applicant has impugned order dated 24.07.2012, passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, whereby a stay application moved on behalf of the applicant against the order of dismissal of application under section 12(2) C.P.C. passed by the learned Rent Controller, was dismissed.

2.         It appears that in the instant matter a rent case bearing Rent Application No.06/2009 was filed against the present applicant and the same was decided against the applicant up to the level of Honourable Supreme Court. In CPLA No.792-K/2011, the Honourable Supreme Court while passing order dated 21.12.2011, observed as under:-

“After having briefly argued the case, Mr. K.A. Wahab, Learned ASC for the Petitioner says that since the premises in question is a commercial one, six months time may be given for vacation of the same. To this proposition, Mr. Kamaluddin, Learned ASC for the Respondents has no objection.

2. In the circumstances of the case, the Petition stands dismissed. At the same time, by consent, six months further time is given to the Petitioner for the purpose of vacating the premises in question subject to the payment of rent etc. If the Petitioner fails to do so, writ of possession shall be issued by the concerned Rent Controller without notice to him.”

3.         It further appears that thereafter the applicant filed an application under section 12(2) C.P.C. alongwith stay application before the Rent Controller and on dismissal of such application, filed stay application before the learned District & Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, who dismissed the same vide impugned order.

4.         After going through the record, it is noted with concern that the conduct of the present applicant is totally unjustifiable in the facts and circumstances of the instant matter wherein on a specific undertaking given by his advocate, six months’ time was granted to him by the Honourable Supreme Court with the observation that if the premises in question is not vacated within such period, a writ of possession shall be issued by the concerned Rent Controller without notice to him.  After obtaining such relief from the Honourable Supreme Court it does not lie in the mouth of the applicant to prefer an application under section 12(2) C.P.C. in order to seek further delay in the ejectment proceedings. It also appears that after filing of the instant revision application, the applicant vide order dated 11.10.2012, had informed the Honourable Supreme Court that since the possession of the rented premises had been handed over to the respondents, the miscellaneous application filed by them for stay and grant of further time had become infructuous.

5.         In view of such position, the instant revision application being totally misconceived is hereby dismissed alongwith the pending applications. However, with no order as to costs.

                                                                                                            JUDGE

S