2013 PLP 1121 (YLR)

SHAHID WAHEED, J.

The petitioners, through this Civil Revision under section 115, C.P.C., have called in question order dated 15-6-2012 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Gujranwala, whereby interim injunction was refused.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioners instituted a suit against the respondents for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 3-6-1991. The petitioners along with the suit also filed an application for grant of temporary injunction. The respondents entered appearance before the learned trial Court and contested the suit by filing a written statement. The respondents also resisted the application filed under Order XXXIX, Rule I and 2, C.P.C. by filing the reply. The learned trial Court after granting opportunity of hearing to the parties dismissed the application vide order dated 9-1-2012. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned Addl. District Judge but the same was dismissed vide order dated 15-6-2012. Hence, this petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of this petition submits that the orders passed by the learned courts below are against the facts and law; that the learned courts below by misreading and non-reading of the documents available on record erroneously declined interim injunction. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes this petition and supports the orders passed by the courts below. 4. 1 have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. The petitioners for the specific performance of agreement to sell dated 30-6-1991 instituted the suit against respondents on 15-10-2011. The perusal of agreement to sell reveals that the same was executed during the pendency of some litigation. It was agreed between the parties to the agreement that sale-deed would be executed after the decision of litigation. The petitioners, in Paragraph No.3 of the plaint, have stated that the Board of Revenue, Punjab decided the case on 2-10-2003. Despite above said decision of the Board of Revenue, the petitioners waited till 2010. The delay of seven years casts an aspersion on the conduct of the petitioners. It is a settled principle of law that in order to seek injunction, a party has to be vigilant and should approach the Court without loss of time to show its bona fide. The delay in such matters normally disentitles the party from seeking relief of injunction. In this regard reference may be made to the case of M. Y. CORPORATION (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Messrs RAM DEVELOPERS and 2 others (PLD 2003 Karachi 222). The petitioners have, therefore, failed to disclose a prima facie case in their favour which is an essential ingredient for grant of temporary injunction. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners has no force as the learned courts below after appreciating the documents available on record have rightly declined interim injunction.

6. This civil revision lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to cost. KMZ/R-39/L Petition dismissed.