' MUHAMMAD AKHTAR SHABBIR, J.-L-Amanullah, plaintiff-petitioner (herein) had instituted a suit for permanent injunction against defendants-respondents with regard to the suit property situated in Khata No.106, Khatoni No.228, Khasra No.409/3-min in Mauza Bhambool, Tehsil Noorpur, District Khushab, restraining them from interfering illegally and forcibly in his possession and dispossessing him except in due process of law. Along with the suit, the plaintiff had filed an application for grant of temporary injunction. Learned trial Court after hearing the parties, vide order dated 24-3-1998 dismissed the application as well as plaint. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff-petitioner preferred an appeal which came up for hearing before the learned District Judge, Khushab who vide, impugned judgment dated 13-9-1999 dismissed the same, affirming the findings of the trial Court.
2. I have heard both sides at length and perused the record with their kind assistance.
3. There is no cavil with the fact that property in dispute is a joint property owned by both the parties and the plaintiff-petitioner has prayed only for the interim relief through suit for injunction to secure his possession over the portion of the property. It is settled proposition of law that in a joint Khata every co-sharer is a sharer of every inch of the property and he has the right to defend his possession and title over the same as laid down in cases of Noor Rehman v. Muhammad Yousaf (2000 CLC 1138) and Muhammad Yousaf Khan v. Board of Revenue and 12 others (2002 CLC 739).
4. For grant of temporary injunction, a litigant has to establish three requirements of law i.e. (i)
Prima facie case; (ii) Balance of convenience; and (iii) Irreparable loss. It is also settled dictum by the superior courts that if . Any of the three ingredients is missing the plaintiff is not entitled for any temporary injunction. Both the courts below have categorically and concurrently observed that plaintiff has not been able to make out a case for issuance of temporary injunction in his favour and in suchlike matters the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction would not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact of courts below. The lower courts have validly observed that plaintiff-petitioner had not properly availed of the remedy available to him and only sought interim injunction against other co-sharers. It is also established law that an injunction against a co-sharer cannot be issued on the application of other co-sharer.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner when confronted to point out any illegality or material irregularity in the impugned judgments/orders passed by the two courts below, could not respond.
6. Resultantly, this revision petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. There shall be no order as to costs.