1991 PLP 1624 (CLC)

A.K. Dogar for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 19th February, 1991. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondents, therefore, the respondents are hereby proceeded against ex parte.

2. The petitioner filed a suit challenging the legality of the auction order dated 24‑6‑1982 after resumption of land from him. The petitioner was allotted land for two years for temporary cultivation from Kharif 1980 to Rabi 1982. The rent for the year 1980‑81 was deposited whereas his case was that he moved application for extension of lease period for 1.981‑82 and assessment of rent. According to the Revenue authorities the petitioner violated the conditions of lease and that he did not deposit rent for the year 1981‑82, therefore, the land was resumed and the same was put to auction and auctioned in favour of the defendants Nos.2 and

3. Alongwith the suit an application was made for issuance of temporary injunction which has been dismissed by the learned trial Court through order dated 21‑12‑1982. The petitioner feeling aggrieved filed an appeal which was also dismissed through order dated 13‑11‑1983 by the learned Addl: District Judge, Faisalabad which has been challenged in this revision petition.

3. Relying upon rule laid down in judgment reported as Mian. Ghulam Muhammad v. The Collector, Montgomery and 2 others (P L D 1973 Lah. 528), learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the non‑deposit of rent was a rectifiable breach on account of which the Collector could not decline to extend the lease period and resumed the land unless the petitioner was given an opportunity to rectify such breach.

4. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner has force and this is the material point on which the very fate of the suit is depending. In view of this reported judgment the petitioner could not be held to have no prima facie case. If the petitioner had a right to be given an opportunity to rectify the breach, prima facie no action prejudicial to his rights could be taken before he was given such opportunity, therefore, he being a person in possession of the land was to suffer irreparable loss if no injunction was issued and as such the balance of convenience was also in his favour.

5. The two Courts below acted with material irregularity and illegality in exercise of jurisdiction vested in them under the law in not following the principles laid down by the superior Courts regarding the issuance of temporary injunction during the pendency of the suit.

6. This revision petition is accepted. The impugned orders passed by the two Courts below are set aside. The application filed by the petitioner for issuance of‑temporary injunction alongwith the suit is accepted and temporary injunction issued in terms thereof till the disposal of the suit. The parties are left to bear their own costs. H.B.T./A‑1205/L???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Revision accepted.