2009 PLP 146 (YLR)

SYED ASGHAR HAIDER, J.--The petitioner entered into an agreement to sell with one Mst. Fatima Bibi (predecessor of respondents Nos.3 to 9), who expired. Later on respondents Nos.3 to 9 sold the said land to respondents Nos.10 to 13 by concealing the execution of the earlier agreement. The petitioner, in the meanwhile approached respondents Nos.3 to 9 for execution of the sale-deed in consequence of the agreement referred to. Upon refusal, the petitioner filed a suit for specific performance along with an application for injunction. The same was dismissed. Aggrieved thereof, an appeal was filed which also was dismissed, hence the present petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned orders are illegal and unjust. The same are based upon conjectures and surmises. The question of possession of land was concurrently ignored by both the courts below.

3. The learned counsel for the respondents controverted this assertions and also specifically referred to the Opening Form of the civil revision, wherein it was stated that the Civil Judge, Narowal had dismissed the stay application, vide order, dated 4-10-2006 but the learned Additional District Judge, Narowal reversed the order. According to the learned counsel, this is against actual facts and interim relief being discretionary in nature be declined on this mis-statement along and petition be dismissed.

4. Heard.

5. It is an understood proposition of law that the injunctive relief is discretionary in nature and dependent upon the prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. The learned trial Court primarily dismissed the application on the ground that the matter needed deep appraisal of evidence to determine the veracity of agreement in question or otherwise. An agreement to sell itself does not create any title for a prospective vendee. Suit-land has already been alienated in favour of respondents Nos.8 to 11, thus ingredients of grant of interim injunction are not in favour of the petitioner. The findings were affirmed by the lower appellate Court on the stated grounds as well as that the disputed agreement was prepared at Narowal whereas Mst. Fatima Bibi, admittedly, was resident of Multan at the relevant time. Be that as it may, the disputed agreement requires to be proved by cogent and reliable evidence. It also stands admitted on record that the possession presently is with respondents Nos.8 to

11. There also are the concurrent findings of facts against the petitioner. No material illegality, irregularity and/or procedural deviation has been pointed. Consequently, this petition has no merits and is therefore, dismissed. H.B.T./G-37/L Petition dismissed.