Find a Lawyer

Civil Revision No. 1569 of 1986, decided on 16th December, 1986.

---O.XXXIX, Rr.1, 2 and S.115--Temporary Injunction--Petitioner unable to point out any illegality or material irregularity in exercise of discretion by Courts below in granting to respondent impugned temporary injunction which manifestly conformed to established principles bearing on matter--Respondents in possession of land in dispute and case set up by them not wholly without substance and grounds which prevailed with Courts below in granting temporary injunction against petitioner were quite justified--Interference declined by High Court in revision.

Khizar Abbas Khan for Petitioner.

This revision petition is directed against the order of the learned District Judge, Jhang dated 14th of January, 1986 whereby the appeal of the petitioner from the order passed by the learned Civil Judge Jhang on 3rd of October, 1985 granting ad interim injunction to the respondents on their application filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2, C.P.C. was dismissed.

2. The dispute between the parties pertains to agricultural land measuring 53 kanals situate in Mauza Sultan Pur, Tehsil and District Jhang. This land originally belonged to one Gulzar Hussain who sold the same to the respondents by a registered sale deed. Prior to the sale Gulzar Hussain had leased out the land to the petitioner for a period of one year. According to the respondents, after the sale of the land to them, the petitioner delivered its possession to them. Subsequently, however, he moved the revenue authorities under M L R No. 115 for the restoration of the land to him on the plea that he had been forcibly ejected therefrom by the respondents. The A.C./ Collector rejected the application. On an appeal the Addl. Commissioner (Revenue) on the basis of special oath of the petitioner accepted his application and directed the respondents to restore him the possession of the lard.

3. Feeling aggrieved, the respondents filed a revision petition before the Member Board of Revenue who vide his order dated 15th of July, 1985 rejected the same observing that since the order of the Addl. Commissioner (Revenue) dated 6th of February; 1984 was based on oath, it had become final and that the revision filed before him was in fact a second revision which was not competent in law. The respondents then filed a civil suit for a 'declaration that they were owners in possession of the land and the orders of the Addl. Commissioner (Revenue) and Member Board of Revenue passed on 6th of February, 1984 and 10th of March, 1985 respectively were illegal and ultra vires and for a perpetual injunction restraining the petitioner from interfering with their possession. Alongwith the suit they filed an application for ad interim injunction to the above effect till the disposal of the suit.

4. The learned Civil Judge after perusing the documents on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties observed that the respondents possessed prima facie case and in view of the fact that they were in possession of the land accepted their application and granted temporary injunction in their favour till the disposal of the suit. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal which was heard by the learned District Judge, Jhang, who by a detailed order dated 14th of January, 1986 upheld the order of the learned Civil Judge. Hence this revision petition.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. He has not been able to point out any illegality or material irregularity in the exercise of discretion by the learned Courts below in granting to the respondents the impugned temporary injunction which manifestly conforms to the established principles bearing on the matter. The respondents are admittedly in possession of the land. The case set up by them is not wholly without substance. The mainstay of the case of the petitioner is the order of the Addl. Commissioner (Revenue) passed on 6th of February 1984. This order was based merely on the special oath of the petitioner and not on any evidence. The assertion of the respondents is that the course adopted by the Addl. Commissioner (Revenue) in disposing of the matter before him offended against law as they had never agreed to the adjudication of the dispute on oath. In these circumstances the grounds which prevailed with the learned Courts below in granting the temporary injunction against the petitioner were quite justified.

6. For the foregoing reasons I do not find any ground for interference and dismiss this revision petition in limine.

M.Y.H./G-50/L Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.