2006 PLP 870 (YLR)

MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.

Admittedly, one Imam Khan, was the owner of the suit-land measuring 181 Kanals, 16 Marlas; he died on 12-6-1991; his daughter, Mst. Jameela Begum, respondent No.1 allegedly got executed a sale-deed in her favour with regard to the same land dated 24-5-1991, from her father, which was registered on 8-6-1991. The petitioners, who are the heris of Mst. Amina, another daughter of Imam Khan on 26-2-2003, has brought the suit challenging the above transaction that their mother and they have been deprived of their right of inheritance of the estate left behind by Imam Khan, by virtue of this fraudulent sale-deed, which has been manoeuvred in collusion with Muhammad Ishaq, and Siddique, husband and son-in-law of Mst. Zarina and Mst. Zanib, respectively, both daughters of Imam Khan. Along with the suit, an application for the grant of temporary injunction has been moved, which has been dismissed vide order dated 24-5-2004. Hence this petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners by relying upon the cases reported as Messrs Bin Bak industries (Pvt.) v. Friends Associates (Regd.) and others (2003 SCMR 238), Mst. Izzat v. Allah Ditta (PLD 1981 SC 165), Mir Haji Khan and others v. Mir Ajjaz Ali and others (PLD 1981 SC 302) and Mst. Zarifan v. Mst Rehmati (1987 SCMR 66), has stated that where an arguable case is made out, the plaintiff is entitled to the grant of interim relief.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and find that the above judgments are distinguishable on their own facts and circumstances. According to law, all the three ingredients i.e. prima facie case, irreparable loss and balance of convenience must co-exist entitling the petitioners to seek the relief. In the instant matter, the sale effected in the year 1991 is being challenged in the year 2003 and that too after the death of Mst. Amina Bibi, who did not challenge it, during her lifetime.

4. The plea of the learned counsel for the petitioners that they were kept in dark, is a question of fact, but of vital importance, which needs proof and presently, it cannot be prima facie assumed that for such a long period of time, the petitioners remained unaware of the transaction. Therefore, I do not find any prima facie case in favour of the petitioners, and uphold the order of the Court below. However, in order to safeguard the interest of the third party, who ma; be alienated the property, without the disclosure of the pendency of the suit and its effects thereof and also to affirm that the rights of the appellants are protected under the rule of lis pendence, 1 direct that if any alienation is made by the respondents, the purchaser/alienee of the property, shall be informed about the pendency of the suit in writing and his express acknowledgment shall be obtained in this behalf. Moreover, particulars of the sale/alienation shall be brought to the notice of the Court and the relevant documents shall be placed on record, within fifteen days of such alienation, so that the petitioners may choose their further course of action. In the light of above, this petition has no force and the same is hereby dismissed. F.M./A-288/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.