' This civil revision assails orders, dated 25-7-2002 and 3-12-2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge and learned Additional District Judge, Sargodha, whereby application of the petitioners seeking temporary injunction and their appeal were dismissed, respectively.
2. Precisely, relevant facts are that petitioners filed a suit for permanent injunction with the averment that they are owners in possession of Ahata No.153 measuring 11 Marlas situated in Chak No.60/SB Tehsil Sillanwali, District Sargodha and respondents are interfering in their possession by show of force unlawfully and thus prayed permanent injunction in this behalf. They along their suit filed an application under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. Seeking ad interim injunction, restraining the respondents from interfering in their possession.
3. Respondents being defendants in the suit, denied assertions in the plaint and contested it, besides their contest to the application for grant of temporary injunction. They averred that they have no concern with Ahata No.153 allotted to the petitioners, but they have encroached upon a part of Ahata No.152 without any legal entitlement. There this assertion was raised on the basis of "Hadbardari" report prepared by revenue officials under rules 67-A and B of the Land Revenue Act.
The learned trial Judge, who was seized of the matter, initially issued temporary injunction in favour of the petitioners, but subsequently recalled it vide his order, dated 11-2-2002.
4. Petitioners aggrieved of the decision of the trial Court filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, which was disposed of on 11-7-2002 and the petitioners were directed to apply for extension of stay before the trial Court. Petitioners, thereafter moved fresh application for grant of relief earlier granted to them by way of extension but it was refused through an order, dated 25-7-2002. Petitioners went in appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, but remained unsuccessful as their appeal was dismissed on 3-12-2003. Thereafter they filed the instant revision petition, which after notice to the respondents has now been laid for final determination.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that undeniably petitioners are in possession of Ahata No.153 and their title to it, was also not refuted by the respondents. Matter regarding alleged encroachment by the petitioners is yet to be determined after recording of evidence and pending trial of this controversy respective possessions of the parties over their Ahata, should have been ordered to be maintained. He further contended that there are two demarcation reports on the file, one prepared in the revenue hierarchy before filing of suit and one by the local commissioner appointed by the learned Additional District Judge and, as a matter of fact, real demarcation in accordance with law is yet to be made. He further submits that all the prerequisites for grant of temporary injunction co-existed in favour of the petitioners, but inspite of it relief to them has been incorrectly refused.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents refuting assertions of the petitioners, supported the concurrent judgments/orders of the two Courts below and urged that real "Hadbardari" report prepared under rule 67-A of the Land Revenue Rules, 1968, supports the claim of the respondents of encroachment on a part of Ahata No.152 by the petitioners and thus refusal of temporary injunction to them is justified. He further submits that respondents are not interested in interfering in possession of the petitioners over Ahata No.153, if petitioners remove their encroachment from the part of their Ahata. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents did not deny possession of the petitioners over Ahata No.153 and that of the respondents over Ahata No.152.
7. I have anxiously considered the respective arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record, appended herewith. Undeniably, the trial Court initially issued a temporary injunction requiring possession of the petitioners to be maintained but it subsequently vacated it under Order XXXIX, rule 1(b) of the Civil Procedure Code and its order granting injunction in favour of the petitioners shows that there existed a prima facie and arguable case in favour of the petitioners. Before me, as well, possession of the petitioners over Ahata No.153 is not denied except alleging. That a part of Ahata No.152 owned by the respondents has been encroached.
Dispute A regarding encroachment is yet to be determined by the trial Court after recording of evidence. The trial Court has not so far scrutinized the "Hadbardari" report relied by the respondents as to whether it is lawful or not. A resort to provisions of Order XXVI, rules 9 and 10, C.P.C. May ultimately be felt necessary by the trial Court, but at the present I feel that both the parties should be required to maintain a status quo regarding their respective possessions because by non-issuance of injunction prayed means, giving a license to one of the parties to take law into its own hands. Law does not favour this course and especially when requiring a status quo goes for the benefit of both the parties, who will not suffer any kind of irreparable loss or inconvenience if such an injunction is ordered to be issued.
8. Petitioner has filed C.M. 155-C/04 seeking permission to place on record copy of the report of Naib Tehsildar regarding demarcation of the properties in dispute. Since the suit is pending before the trial Court. This document is not necessary for just decision of the revision petition. The document sought to be produced may be produced before the trial Court in accordance with law.
This petition is dismissed being misconceived.
9. For what has been discussed above, I am constrained to hold that both the Courts below did not advert to the aspect of the case discussed above and incorrectly refused grant of temporary injunction, pending suit. I accordingly accept this revision petition, set aside orders, dated 25-7- 2002 and 3-12-2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge and learned Additional District Judge, Sargodha and by allowing application of the petitioners for grant of temporary injunction, require both the parties to maintain status quo, as it exists today with regard to both the Ahatas i.e. Ahata No.153 and Ahata No.152 till the decision of the suit. There will be no order as to costs.
10. Viewing the controversy between the parties, I direct the trial Court to conclude proceedings in the suit expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months under intimation to the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. This order may immediately be conveyed to the trial Court through learned District Judge, Sargodha.