2010 PLP 524 (CLC)

HAFIZ ABDUL REHMAN ANSARI, J.

Through this civil revision petition the petitioner calls in question the validity of the orders passed by learned Civil Judge, Multan dated 2-6-2009 as well as order dated 13-8-2009 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Multan.

2. Briefly, stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner got registered Quaid-e-Azam Public School, Jalalpur Pirwala with Punjab Education Foundation on 7-14-2007. Respondent No.5 Muhammad Saleem has nothing to do with the school. On 23-10-2008 respondent No.5 in connivance with respondents Nos.1 to 4 got cancelled the registration of school in the name of the petitioner and himself opened new school in the name of Quaid-e-Azam Public School Middol School in the year 2008 for the receipt of financial aid from Punjab Education Foundation. The Punjab Education Foundation used to dispatch money but later on stopped. Along with the suit the petitioner also filed application for temporary injunction, hence this petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both courts below wrongly and illegally dismissed stay application. The petitioner had strong prima facie case and there was likelihood of success on his main suit. He mainly emphasized in his argument that financial aid the Punjab Foundation respondents Nos.2 and 3 are donating to a school which was stopped. Learned counsel further submits that the impugned order is against facts and circumstances of the case as well as contrary to law. Further submits that findings of both the courts below are based on misreading and non-reading of material available on record. The courts below have committed illegality or material irregularity resulting into miscarriage of justice.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

5. The learned trial Court/Civil Judge 1st Class, Multan in his order dated 2-6-2009 has observed as under:

"It is quite evident from the record that the defendant/ respondent No.5 is now running the school over the site in question. As per version of the applicant himself he had shifted his school during the month of January, 2008 from the site in question to Mohallah Ameerabad. It is also very noticeable that the school in question has now been got registered vide Registration No.1378 dated 23-10-2008 in the name of defendant/respondent No.5 from 1-4-2008 to 31-3-2010. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 also produced the copy of registration in the name of the applicant wherein he was registered as owner of the school from 1-5-2003 to 31-3-2005. So in the attending circumstances, I find no hesitation to hold that the petitioner has not been successful to establish an arguable case in his favour. He would therefore, neither suffer irreparable loss nor balance of convenience would lie in his favour. Resultantly the petition in hand stands dismissed." The learned Additional District Judge, Multan has also observed as under:

"The petitioner/appellant will not suffer irreparable loss as it is a money matter. Moreover, if the appeal is accepted there is apprehension that the students of registered one school would suffer irreparable loss. Balance of convenience also leans towards respondent No.5 as he is running a registered school and the respondents Nos.2 to 4 have admitted the status of respondent No.5 as being registered one on the record of Punjab Education Foundation. For what has been discussed above I find no illegality in the impugned order dated 2-6-2009 passed by the learned trial Court. The same is upheld and the appeal stands dismissed."

6. Learned trial Court/Civil Judge, Multan in the present case on appraisal of material on record had considered the matter from all angles keeping in view the factors relating to grant and refusal of temporary injunction. The trial Court had advanced sound, cogent and sagacious reasons in support of the order dated 7-11-2007. The lower appellate Court upheld the order passed by learned trial Court, expressing valid reasons. The civil revision has a limited scope. This Court could not interfere in revisional jurisdiction with the concurrent findings on the question of fact determined by the two courts below. The learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any misreading and non-reading in the order passed by two courts below. The mere assertion that impugned judgment and order suffer from misreading and non-reading of material on record without pinpointing or substantiating the same from the record, the concurrent finding of fact cannot be disturbed by High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The petitioner has badly failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the decision concurrently arrived at by the learned trial Court as well as by the learned lower appellate Court. There does not justify interference of High Court in revision petition. This revision petition is merit less and is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./M-804/L Petition dismissed.