2007 PLP 1565 (CLC)

SH. HAKIM ALI, J.

Through this civil revision, order, dated 28-3-2007, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sadiqabad, sustaining the order, dated 21-12-2006, of learned Civil Judge, Sadiqabad, declining to grant temporary injunction in a suit for specific performance of contract, filed by present petitioner/plaintiff against Ghulam Sarwar and another, defendants/respondents, has been challenged.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submits that petitioner had purchased the property in dispute through agreement to sell, dated 10-8-1991 from Ghulam Sarwar, respondent No.1 for Rs:19,200 but thereafter respondent No.1 Ghulam Sarwar executed a registered sale-deed dated 20-12-2005 in favour of Hussain Bakhsh, respondent No.2 which was illegal and the result of fraud. As the petitioner was holding agreement to sell, executed by Ghulam Sarwar, respondent No. 1 in his favour, so he was entitled for grant of temporary injunction. Applicability of rule of lis pendens could not be made a ground by the learned Courts below to refuse the grant of temporary injunction. He has referred to Sardar Wali Muhammad v. Sardar Muhammad Iqbal Khan Mokal and 7 others PLD 1975 Lah. 492 to support his contention.

3. After considering the arguments of learned counsel and from the perusal of the record, I have round that execution of alleged agreement to sell dated 10-8-1991 was not admitted by respondent No.1 to have written in favour of petitioner. Moreover, the alleged sale amount was also denied to have been, received by the owner. This agreement to sell was termed by him as a fake and fictitious document, having no worth and value in law and in fact. In these circumstances, when agreement to sell in question was not admitted to have been executed and the payment of money to have been paid to the vendor, was also not supported through any cogent evidence, the dismissal of temporary injunction application cannot be taken to .any exception. There is no independent documentary proof for the payment of alleged sale amount and the delivery of possession under the above noted document, whereas on the other hand, respondent No.2 has purchased the property through registered sale-deed. Therefore, purchaser through lawful means and executed admitted document why should be restrained from exercising his right of ownership? The petitioner, if succeeded finally in the case, would become entitled to get the possession of the property in dispute on the basis of that decree and for the completion and execution of sale-deed in his favour. Therefore, concurrent findings of the learned Courts below cannot be disturbed.

4. Before parting from this judgment, I would like to note that there is no doubt in the correctness of the version of learned counsel that the rule of lis pendens cannot be used as a tool and bar for refusal to grant temporary injunction, yet it is also a correct principle that each case has to be examined and dealt with in accordance with its own given facts and circumstances. Generally, where the execution of agreement to sell is admitted and dispute has arisen with regard to fulfilment of its terms and conditions of contract, in such an event, temporary injunction to maintain status quo, to restrain inclusion of strangers or to avoid the multiplicity of litigation is issued by the Courts below. But where alleged document of agreement is a dubious document from its own face, the execution of which is denied by the alleged executant, there is no other supportive or corroborative evidence, and there is no cogent proof of payment of consideration, in such-like cases, usually refusal of issuance of interim injunction becomes the rule of the day. Because it would be a great injustice to restrain a lawful owner to exercise his lawful rights of ownership, and to grant benefit to a blackmailer, cheater, impostor, impersonator or defaulter, who, after obtaining an injunction may prolong and protract the litigation and thereby gain its beneficial repercussions. In such case how temporary injunction can be granted to such a person? The civil revision is dismissed in limine. S.A.K./M-362/L Revision dismissed.