2007 PLP 2190 (YLR)

MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J.

Instant civil revision assailed the judgments/orders dated 31-3-2004 and 4-11-2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge and the learned Additional District Jude, Toba Tek Singh, to be declared illegal, void and of no legal consequence, whereby application under Order XXXIX, rule 2(3), C.P.C. filed by the petitioner and his appeals were dismissed respectively.

2. Factual background of the case is that petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell against the respondents wherein he also moved an application for grant of temporary injunction restraining the respondents from alienating the property in question, pending suit. The learned Civil Judge, seized of the matter, after hearing the parties, confirmed already granted ad interim injunction vide his order dated 22-1-2000.

3. Petitioner moved another applica tion under Order XXXIX, rule 2(3), C.P.C. complaining violation of restraint order dated 22-1-2000 and reported that respondents got sanctioned 3 same Mutation Nos.713 dated 23-8-2000, 715 on 26-9-2000 and 735 dated 26-4-2001, transferring the suit-land in favour of third party. This application was opposed by the respondents and was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge vide his order dated 31-3-2004.

4. Petitioner being aggrieved of the dismissal of his application, filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, but remained unsuccessful as the same was also dismissed -on 4-11-2004. He has now filed instant petition for ad-judgment of concurrent judgments/orders of the two Courts below.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have examined the record, appended herewith. Besides the lawful reasons, which concurrently weighed with the two Courts below while returning the impugned judgments/orders, injunctive order dated 22-1-2000 was to remain operative for a period of 6 months unless the same was extended by the Court through an order passed after hearing of the parties and conscious application of judicial mind, as per provision of rule 2-B of Order XXXIX, C.P.C. In this case restraint order was not extended by the trial Court after 22-7-2000 and stood automatically vacated thereafter, by operation of law. All the 3 mutations were sanctioned much later than the date on which the said order seized to exist, consequently petitioner's application under Order XXXIX, rule 2(3), C.P.C. was correctly dismissed by the Courts below.

6. Stance of the learned counsel for the petitioner that period of 6 months mentioned in rule 2-B of Order XXXIX, C.P.C. was substituted with the words "one year" through Gazette Notification No.338/ Rules-II, hence the mutations in question were attested in violation of the prohibitory order, has not impressed him to upset the well reasoned judgments/orders, for the simple reason that though procedural law could be applied retrospectively but it could not inject life to the order which already stood vacated. Petitioner's stay order seized to exist on 22-7-2000 whereas the amendment relied was made on 20-10-2001 and in these circumstances, the same was of no help to the case of the petitioner. Reliance in this behalf can conveniently be made to the cases of Samir Oosman and 2 others v. Rex Talkies (Pvt.) Ltd. and another (PLD 1997 Karachi 579) and Syed Muhammad Shah Jahan Shah v. Fazal-ur-Rehman (1996 CLC 1572).

7. For the reasons noted above, no case for interference in revisional jurisdiction of this Court was made out and consequently instant petition being devoid of any merit, is dismissed in limine. F.B./M-259/L Petition dismissed.