1989 PLP 225 (MLD)

(c) Civil Procedure Code. (V of 1908)‑‑ ‑‑‑S.24‑‑Transfer of case‑‑Different suits in respect of same property between different parties were pending in different Courts‑‑To avoid conflicting decisions suit pending in Court `A' was withdrawn and assigned to Court `M' with direction to dispose of both suits expeditiously. Qazi Abdul Hameed for. Petitioner. Khakan. Babar for Respondent. Date of hearing: 10th January, 1989. The petitioner is the vendee for site measuring 18 marlas and 185 sq. feet through sale deed dated 16‑5‑1979, executed by Mst. Inayat Bibi in her favour. This site forms part of Plot No. 27‑M, Gulberg 111, Lahore which falls in L.DA's. Gulberg III Development Scheme. The site is said to be in possession of M/s. Sultan Rubber Factory against whom the L.DA. has filed a suit which is under hearing in the Court of Mr. Muhammad Aslam, Civil Judge, Lahore and now fixed for 13‑3‑1989.

2. It is discernible from the plaint that Plot No. 27‑M changed hands several times, and was ultimately purchased by Mst. Inayat Bibi who as, stated above sold away the said site to the petitioner. The possession of the plot was delivered to the petitioner's predecessor‑in‑interest except that of its portion measuring 18 marlas and 185 sq. feet. After the sale in her favour, the petitioner endeavoured to obtain possession but failed. She then filed a suit compelling the L.D.A. to hand over to her, an equivalent area out of adjoining Plot No. 111‑A/A‑

2. This suit is pending in the Court of Mr. Abdul Qadir Shad, Civil Judge, Lahore and fixed for 16‑2-1988. Alongwith the plaint the petitioner moved an application for grant of temporary injunction. It was dismissed by the trial Court on' 28‑7‑1986. Her appeal also failed. The order rendered by the Addl. District Judge, Lahore dismissing the appeal, under challenge in this revision is dated 12‑4‑1988.

3. The available record shows that both the Courts below took the view that prima facie the petitioner has no right to the transfer of a portion of Plot No. 111 A/A‑2.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the A available record. I do not feel persuaded to differ with‑the concurrent decision of the learned Courts below. I am tentatively of the view that there is no lawful basis to permit the petitioner to lay hand on a portion of the adjoining plot. In any case grant or refusal or temporary injunction was within the discretion of the " Courts below who declined to grant the temporary injunction to the petitioner. This Court would be reluctant to interfere in exercise of its powers under section E 115, C.P.C. in a matter which legitimately falls within the discretion of the subordinate Courts. This revision petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs:

5. During the course of hearing of the revision it has been stated at the Bar that to avoid conflicting decisions it is necessary that both the suits should be heard by the same Court with which I agree Accordingly the suit pending in the Court of Mr. Abdul Qadir Shad, Civil Judge, Lahore is withdrawn and assigned to C the Court of Mr. Muhammad Aslam, Civil Judge, Lahore who is directed to dispose of both the suits expeditiously and in any case by 31‑7‑1989. So far as possible the same date of hearing shall be fixed m both the suits. In order to `' abide with the time limit aforesaid the learned Court shall be at liberty to change the date of hearing already fixed. The copies of this judgment shall be sent for compliance forthwith to the learned District Judge, Lahore and both the Courts seized of the civil suits. H.B.T./S‑339/L Revision petition dismissed.