2008 PLP 82 (YLR)

MIAN HAMID FAROOR, J.

The petitioner/plaintiff instituted the suit for declaration, against the respondent, also challenging sale deed dated 19-3-1974 and seeking the decree to the effect that the respondent is only a "benami owner" of disputed house and after the death of father of the petitioner, all the legal heirs are entitled to jointly inherit the disputed house. The plaint was accompanied with the application for grant of temporary injunction, praying therein that the respondent be restrained from transferring the questioned property to any other person. The respondents resisted the both through written statement and reply. The learned trial Court dismissed the application, vide order dated 18-7-2005. Petitioner's appeal against the said order failed, when it was dismissed by the learned Additional. District Judge on 23-8-2005, hence the present revision petition.

2. I have heard the learned counsel and examined the available record. Both the Courts, after examining the relevant record and finding that the respondent No.1 has produced voluminous documents to show that she is owner in possession of the disputed house and having registered sale deed in her favour, came to the unanimous conclusion that the petitioner has not got any prima facie good case. Both the Courts, after concurrently finding that the petitioner has failed to establish three necessary and inseparable ingredients i.e. prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss, which are sine qua non for the grant of temporary injunction, dismissed his application, to which no exception could be taken. I have no reasons to disagree with the findings of both the Courts below, which are legal and in consonance with the record of the case. Both the judgments are neither arbitrary nor fanciful nor suffer from any legal infirmity, therefore, I am not inclined to disturb the said findings. It has been held in the case reported as Shahzada Muhammad Umar Beg v. Sultan Mahmood Khan and another (PLD 1970 SC 139) that discretionary orders of subordinate Courts cannot be interfered with unless found fanciful and arbitrary.

3. Even otherwise, the apprehension shown by the petitioner regarding transfer of questioned property during the pendency of the suit can adequately be taken care of by section 52 of Transfer of Property Act. The said provision of law provides that the property cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with by any party to the suit or proceeding, so as to affect the rights of any other_ party thereto under any decree or order, which may be made therein except under the authority of the Court. If any judgments are needed, the cases reported as Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan through Deputy Chief Manager v. Saadi Asmatullah and others (1999 SCMR 2874) and Mukhtar Baig and others v. Sardar Baig and others (2000 SCMR 45) can be referred.

4. In view of the above, the present petition is devoid of merits, hence stands dismissed with no order as to costs. H.B.T./A-201/L Petition dismissed.