2000 PLP 1255 (CLC)

The brief facts out of which the present revision petition arises are that the petitioners filed a suit for declaration alongwith permanent injunction against the respondents on 25‑6‑1998 alongwith the application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. for interim injunction. Originally the trial Court granted the interim relief to the petitioner but subsequently it was not confirmed vide order, dated 6‑5‑1999. The petitioners being aggrieved filed appeal before the District Judge, Mandi Bahauddin who dismissed the same vide judgment, dated 11‑11‑1999, hence the present revision petition.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that both the Courts below had erred in law to refuse the interim relief to the petitioner on the principle of lis pendense. He relied upon the following judgments:‑‑ (1) Sardar Wali Muhammad v. Sardar Muhammad Iqbal Moaakal PLD 1975 Lah.492, (2) Sardar Wali Muhammad's case PLD 1975 Lah. 492, (3) Mrs. Parveen Begum v. Raj Muhammad Sarwar Khan PLD 1956 Kar.

521. He further submits that the petitioners have challenged the mutation in the present suit. Both the Courts below wrongly presumed the mutation to be solemn truth till it was proved to be tainted with fraud in violation of principle laid down by this Court in Mst. Aisha Bibi's case PLD 1957 Lah.

371. He further submits that petitioners are in possession as is evident from the written statement filed by the respondents. He further submits that petitioners lodged F.I.R. No.3 at Police Station Anti‑Corruption Establishment, Mandi Bahauddin on 19‑3‑1999. He summed up his arguments that property in question belonged to Nazar Muhammad who allegedly gifted the same to respondent Muhammad Hanif vide Mutation No.678, dated 28‑3‑1998, who died on 1‑4‑1998. The age of Nazar Muhammad was round about 100 years at the time of execution of gift.

3. The learned counsel of the respondents submits that both the Courts below have given concurrent finding of fact and exercised discretion against the petitioners, therefore, revision petition is not maintainable. He relied upon Muhammad Asmat Ullah's case 1998 CLC 295 submits that during the pendency of the suit the petitioners have also filed another suit in the Court of Mr. Shaukat Mehmood, Civil Judge, Mandi Bahauddin and the petitioners have withdrawn the suit on 12‑12‑1999. The learned counsel of the petitioners in rebuttal submits that to avoid endless litigation the direction be issued to the trial Court to decide the main suit within four months. The learned counsel of the petitioners further submits that he has no instructions that whether petitioners have filed subsequent suit or not.

4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record myself. Both the Courts below have given presumption of truth to the impugned mutation which is p not in accordance with the law laid down by the superior Courts in arriving to this conclusion. I am fortified by the judgment of this Court in PLD 1957 Lah.

371. I am also fortified by the judgments of Sardar Walt's case PLD 1975 Lah. 492, PLD 1956 Kar. 5~1, Miss Parveen Be gum's case 1992 CLC 1288, Nazir Ahmed's case Mst. Aisha Bibi v. Muhammad AIR 1926 PC 100 Nirman Singh's case. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the respondent is distinguished on facts and law, Both the Courts below have erred in law to exercise their discretion in accordance with law laid down by B this Court. By virtue of Article 201 of the Constitution, the judgment of this Court is binding on each and every organ of the State. Respondent's counsel raised impliedly preliminary objection that revision petition has become infructuous in view of the suit filed by some of the petitioners during the pendency of this suit. Be that as it may the respondents are well within their right to file application before the trial Court that the suit has become infructuous as the petitioner's counsel did not have any instructions from his clients whether petitioners have filed subsequent suit during the pendency of the suit or not? For what has been discussed above, this revision petition is accepted with no order as to costs. In the interest of justice and fair play, the parties are directed to maintain the status quo qua possession and respondents are restrained to alienate the property till 1‑8‑2000. The trial Court is directed to C decide the suit till the aforesaid date i.e. 1‑8‑2000, even at the cost of day to day proceedings parties are directed to cooperate with the trial Court. H.B.T.‑G‑15/1 Revision accepted.