1988 PLP 1495 (MLD)

This revision petition arises out of order dated 14‑5‑1983 of the learned Additional District Judge, Okara whereby he dismissed petitioner's appeal and maintained order dated 25‑4‑1983 of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Okara, dismissing petitioner's application for temporary injunction pending disposal of the suit filed by him.

2. The facts in brief giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner instituted a suit for declaration that he was owner in possession of the suit property and as a consequential relief sought injunction restraining the respondents from interfering in his possession. The learned Senior Civil Judge granted ad interim injunction in his favour on 29‑i1‑1982 but on application moved by the respondents under Order XXXIX, Rule 4, Civil Procedure Code he vacated the stay order and dismissed petitioner's application for temporary injunction. The petitioner challenged the afore‑said order in appeal which was dismissed on 14‑5‑1983 by learned Additional District Judge, Okara. Hence this petition.

3. The petitioner in the suit alleged that the property in dispute was allotted to one Sadan under the Colonization of Government Lands Act V of 1912. He died on 4‑12‑1946. Mst. Bibi his widow, deposited the sale price of the dispute,' property and obtained proprietary rights thereof. Thereafter, vide registered sale deeds she alienated the land in dispute on 22‑1‑1968 and Ahata in dispute or; 22‑12‑1972 in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner came in possession of the property in dispute ever since the same was purchased by him. The afore mentioned alienations were duly recorded in the revenue record. The respondents sought correction of the entries in the Revenue record on the basis of the provisions of Shariat Application (Removal of Difficulties) Ordinance, 1972. Their application was dismissed by the Collector and his order was maintained in appeal. However, the learned Member, Board of Revenue on 16‑1 1979 allowed the appeal which led the petitioner to rile the suit.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned Senior Civil Judge as well as the lower appellate Court exceeded their jurisdiction in deciding almost the entire suit while disposing of the application for temporary injunction and referred to various paragraphs of the impugned orders holding that Mst. Bibi was a limited owner and could not alienate the property in dispute in favour of the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner was bona fide purchaser of the property in dispute through registered sale deeds and being in Possession had a prima facie case entitling hero to the grant of temporary injunction pending disposal of the suit. He relied on Marghub Siddiqui v. Hamid Ahmad Khan and" 2 others. (1974 S C M R 519), N1iari Muhammad Latif v. Province of West Pakistan f P L D 1970 S C 180) and Mst. Ferer Begum v. Mst. Amtul Farooq (1976 S C M, R 291) in support of his submissions.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed this petitioner and stated that the petitioner had prima facie no case and the learned lower Courts were within their jurisdiction to dismiss his petition for temporary injunction.

6. I have considered the arguments raised by learned counsel for the parties and gore through the impugned orders passed by the learned lower Courts. The perusal of the impugned orders clearly shows that the learned lower Courts by dilating upon the controvorsial points, involved in the case decided tire entire suit while disposing of the application for temporary injunction and in this manner exceeded their jurisdiction. The question as to whether Mst. Bibi, the predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioner was a limited owner and the petitioner a bona fide purchaser of the suit property through registered sale‑deeds and in possession thereof prima facie established him entitled to the grant of temporary I injunction. I accordingly allow this appeal, set aside the impugned orders and I grant temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner till the disposal of the suit.

7. However, in the circumstances of the case and with a view to safeguarding the interest of the respondents I direct that the petitioner shall furnish security of the mesne profits within a fortnight from tire date of the order to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.

8. The learned. trial Court is directed to dispose of this case on priority basis before 15th of April, 1984 and submit compliance report in this behalf.

9. There shall be no order as to costs. . M.Y.H./3245/L Petition accepted.