1989 PLP 4877 (MLD)

‑‑‑OXXXIX, Rr.1 & 2‑‑Temporary injunction restraining defendant from alienating suit property during pendency of suit‑‑Deed of agreement to sell property to plaintiff bore signatures of defendant's husband and mukhtar, a fact admitted by defendant's side‑‑Plaintiffs therefore had a prima facie case‑‑No exception, thus could be taken to the correctness of temporary injunction issued against defendant. Chaudhry Muhammad Aslam Sandhu for Appellant. Date of hearing: 28th June, 1989. This appeal calls in question the validity of the order of the learned Civil Judge, Ferozewala, dated the 22nd May, 1989, issuing temporary injunction order pendente lite restraining the appellant from alienating the property in dispute The petitioner, Mst. Raana Riaz, is the owner of the land in dispute measuring 47 kanals 9 marlas, situate in the area of village Qila Maseeta, Tehsil Ferozewala, district Sheikhupura. She has been alleged by the respondents to have entered into agreement with them to sell the land through her husband and mukhtar, Abdul Jabbar, who was said to have executed the deed of agreement on the 10th January, 1989. According to the respondents a sum of Rs.4,00,000 was fixed as sale price and Rs.3,30,000 were void as earnest money to the appellant's mukhtar. On the 18th February, 1989 the respondents instituted suit in the civil Court, Ferozewala for possession through specific performance of contract of sale and for issuance of permanent injunction restraining the appellant from alienating the suit land. Alongwith the plaint the respondents moved application for the grant of temporary injunction whose acceptance has given rise to the present appeal.

2. The appellant gave a lie to the respondents' assertion that she had even contracted to sell the land. She described the alleged deed of agreement to be fictitious and without consideration. She maintained that the property was worth Rs.1,00,00,000 and she could not have parted with it for a paltry sum of Rs.4,00,

000. The alleged deed of agreement bears the signatures of the appellant's husband and mukhtar, Abdul Jabbar. This fact is admitted by the learned counsel for the appellant and it weighed heavily on the mind of the learned trial Civil Judge to persuade him to issue the injunction order. The learned counsel explains that the appellant's mukhtar and husband, Abdul Jabbar, might have signed blank paper for preparation of some written statement or application and might have given it to his counsel and that it might have fallen into the hands of the respondents who fabricated the deed of agreement. However, the appellant has not specifically alleged nor the learned counsel is able to tell at the moment as to why Abdul Jabbar signed blank paper and whom he gave it for the purpose of writing written statement or application. At the moment the document bears the signatures of the appellant's mukhtar and, therefore. the respondents may be said to have a prima facie case. In such a situation it is difficult to take exception to the correctness of the impugned order. This appeal is dismissed in limine.

3. In view of the averments contained in the written statement and subsistence of the injunction order it seems desirable that the suit should be expeditiously disposed of. The learned trial Civil Judge is directed to give it priority over other cases, decide it before the 20th December, 1989 and report compliance to this Court. AA/R‑180/L Temporary injunction maintained.