2004 PLP 487 (YLR)

(b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)

S. 8

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908); O.XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2

Suit for possession

Interim injunction, grant of-- Plea of exclusive ownership in respect of suit property raised by plaintiffs having been disputed by defendants who claimed joint ownership in the suit property, claim .of plaintiffs had still to, be adjudicated upon

Grant of injunction in case of joint ownership would adversely affect the interest of joint ownership of the parties in suit

Courts below, in circumstances, had rightly dismissed application of plaintiffs for grant of interim injunction. Sheikh Muhammad Sharif Zafar for Appellant. This civil revision has been filed to get, the order/judgment dated 25-6-2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bahawalnagar in re: Muhammad Imtiaz. v. Nasir Ali (Civil Appeal No.62 of 2002) set-aside.

2. The facts emanating from the record are that a suit for possession on the basis of ownership was filed by the present petitioners as well as the predecessor-in interest of respondents Nos.7 to

12. Muhammad Fareed deceased, the brother of the petitioner, with regard to a Shop No.260- situated in Dhaban Bazar, Bahawalnagar. The defendants-respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 4 filed a separate written statement, while defendant No.3 Muhammad Islam, who was also arrayed as defendant in the list of defendants, filed a separate written statement. The disputed shop was pleaded to be a joint ownership property of plaintiffs and defendants. Alongwith the suit the plaintiffs filed an application for grant of ad interim injunction against the defendants with the prayer that the respondents-defendants be restrained from changing. the nature, demolishing the shop in dispute, its construction afresh, encumbering or alienating it to any one during the pendency of the suit. The application filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge on 10-10-2002 against which an appeal filed by the plaintiffs in the Court of the learned Additional ' District Judge, Bahawalnagar met with the same fate on 25-6-2003. Hence, this revision.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned judgment/order of the learned appellant Court upholding that of trial Court is not legal because in case the ad interim injunction is not granted to the petitioners plaintiffs, they would suffer irreparable loss. According to paras.5 and 6 of the civil revision it has been narrated that the alienation from respondent No.4 Khursheed Begum in favour of respondents Nos,.2 and 3 through registered sale-deed dated 29-8-1998 was based on fraud and collusive.

4. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel appearing on behalf. of the petitioners and perused the record.

5. Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, is the best answer to the plea taken by the petitioner with regard to the refusal of ad interim injunctive order. Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act provides that no party to the suit can deal with the property in dispute except with the prior permission of the Court. So if any party to the suit transacts any transaction or makes any alteration to the, nature of the property or encumbers or alienates the property in dispute in any manner, it would be at its own cost and risk, and would not be approved by the Court concerned at the time of final a adjudication of the case. The party adopting such methods, ways of means has to suffer himself. Even the person coming into picture through any such above-referred bargains. becomes bound by the decree, which is passed in the suit and cannot them any additional or substituted benefits. He has to follow the footsteps of the party under whom he claims any .such right. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has referred to Syed Ahmad Saeed Karmani v. Raja Ashfaq Sarwar and others 2000 MLD 495 but the authority, if perused minutely, goes against the arguments of the petitioner. The words used in that authority "Consequence of doctrine of lis pendens was that a transaction made while suit was pending would not be allowed to effect the intent and purpose of section 52, Transfer of Property Act, 1882 which provided the maintenance of the status quo, unaffected by the act of any party to the litigation pending its determination". It supports the view taken by me rather providing any assistance to the learned counsel for the petitioner. I am fortified also in my opinion by the view taken in the following authorities:-- Mst. Attia Sultana v. Muhammad Siddique and others 1988 MLD 110.9 and the view taken in Ch. Shujaat Hussain and another v. Mian Aslam Riaz Hussain and others 1994 MLD 2079. There is yet another aspect of the case. The plea of exclusive ownership raised by the plaintiff-petitioner has been disputed by the defendants who have claimed joint ownership in the property in dispute. Therefore, the claim of the petitioners has still to-be adjudicated upon. The grant of injunction case of joint ownership would adversely affect the interest of joint ownership of the parties arrayed in the suit. For the foregoing reasons; I do not want to interfere into the exercise or jurisdiction anti the view taken by the learned Courts below. I therefore, dismiss this civil revision without any orders as to cost. H.B.T./M-2362/L Revision dismissed