1994 PLP 146 (CLC)

The petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction. His case was that he was in possession of the land and the respondents be restrained from interfering in his possession. Alongwith the suit an application was made for issuance of temporary injunction against the respondents. This application was dismissed by learned trial Court through order dated 23‑7‑1990 who held that the respondents were in possession of the land. Before this order was passed the learned trial Court appointed Local Commissioner who submitted his report.

2. The appeal filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed by learned lower appellate Court through order dated 5‑11‑1991.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that on 19‑5‑1990 the respondent made an application before the learned trial Court in which he allege that the present petitioner/plaintiff had forcibly taken over the possession of land from him on 18‑5‑1990 therefore, the Local Commissioner should also be directed to submit report about the manner and the time of raking over of possession by the petitioner of the land, therefore, the petitioner being admittedly in possession of the land, temporary injunction should have been issued.

4. Akhtar Masood Khan, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the respondents made an application before the learned trial Court for proceeding against the petitioner for contempt of Court. He having forcibly dispossessed him during the continuation of interim stay order due to which the petitioner delivered back the possession to the respondents to save themselves from punishment. This fact was brought to the notice of the Local Commissioner when statement was made before him by the respondents.

5. The Local Commissioner was examined by the learned trial Court as witness a copy of whose statement has been placed on the record. He has stated that this fact was brought to his notice. The Local Commissioner submitted his report on 20‑6‑1990 whereas he inspected the spot on 18‑6‑1990. He found at the spot that the respondents were in possession of the land and not the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed on record certified copy of Register Haqdaran for the year 1989‑90 which prima facie shows that the name of respondent No.2 has been recorded in this document.

6. The finding of the two Courts below that the respondents were in possession of the land and not the petitioner has not been shown to have suffered from any misreading, misconstruction or non‑reading of the material on the record. The petitioners failed to make out a prima facie case therefore, the two Courts below rightly declined to issue temporary injunction. It appears that in the garb of temporary injunction the petitioner intends to forcibly take over possession of the land from the respondents.

7. The two Courts below have not committed any material irregularity or illegality in exercise of jurisdiction vested in them under the law. The revision petition fails which is accordingly dismissed in limine. H.B.T./S‑366/L Revision petition dismissed.