1986 PLP 2112 (CLC)

S. 115 t O.XXXIX, Rr. 1, 2--Revision--Interim injunction--Suit for declaration on basis of possession--Petitioner recorded as trespasser in revenue record--No documentary evidence showing that Ihata was ever allotted to him--No prima facie case found out by Appellate Court Impugned order not suffering from jurisdictional defect--No valid ground, having been shown to interfere with same, petitioner, held, was not entitled to interim injunction--Revision petition dismissed in limine. M.R. Khalid for Appellant. Date of hearing: 18th November, 1985. The civil revision is directed against the order of Additional District Judge, Sahiwal, dated 31st October, 1985, who accepting appeal of the respondent recalled the interim injunction granted to petitioner by the learned trial Court, vide order, dated 24th July, 1984 in a suit for declaration on the basis of possession and for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with his possession of the suit premises, filed by the petitioner. 2. Briefly stated relevant facts are that respondent AhmadyPartahpepr1eioed or the allotme ' of 'the disputed Ihata for establishing as the same had been reserved for the purpose. The learned Collector allotted the same to the respondent, vide order dated 31st May, 1983. An appeal was filed against the allotment by the petitioner before Additional Commissioner (Revenue) on the basis of possession which failed on 13th June, 1983 on the ground that the disputed Ihata could not be allowed to be retained by the petitioner for residential purpose since it was reserved for setting up a rural shop. Against this order the petitioner filed the instant suit and alongwith it an application for temporary injunction was also moved under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. The learned Civil Judge having heard the parties granted temporary injunction till decision of the suit. Against this appeal was preferred to the Additional District Judge by the respondent /allottees. The learned Additional District Judge observed that the petitioner's name has been recorded in the revenue record as trespasser and that he could not produce before him any documentary evidence showing that disputed Ihata was ever allotted to him under Settlement Scheme No. VII. In the circumstances learned Additional District Judge found that the learned trial Court erred in holding the petitioner to be having strong prima facie case, set aside order, dated 27th April, 1984 and dismissed the stay application. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner has come to this Court. 3. I have heard the learned counsel at some length and find that the learned Additional District Judge by applying his conscious mind to the facts and circumstances of the case came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not entitled to interim injunction which to my mind is not open to exception. The impugned order does not suffer from jurisdictional defect either. I do not consequently find a valid ground to interfere with the same. The petition being without merit is hereby dismissed in limine. S. A. Petition dismissed in limine.