' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.---Leave is sought against the judgment, dated 2-10-2000 of the Lahore High Court through which revision petition filed by the petitioners has been dismissed.
2. The respondent in the first instance filed a suit for permanent injunction against the petitioners alleging that the petitioners were intending to dispossess him from the land in dispute measuring 7 Marlas in which temporary injunction was issued restraining them from interfering in the possession of the respondent over this land. The petitioners in violation of the said temporary injunction forcibly dispossessed the respondent from the land in dispute upon which the latter made an application for punishment of the petitioners for violation of the said order of the Court.
The petitioners were found guilty of violation of the order of the Court, therefore, they were convicted and sentenced to undergo one month imprisonment by the trial Court which passed the order of temporary injunction. In appeal, however, the said conviction was upheld but instead of imprisonment of one month, they were punished with fine of Rs,10,000. They did not challenge the said order any further, therefore, the same became final.
3. The respondent thereafter filed summary suit under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act for recovery of possession of the land in dispute. It was dismissed on the ground of limitation, for the same had not been filed within six months period of limitation prescribed under the law of such suits.
4. The respondent filed the present regular suit for recovery of possession of the land on the ground of his dispossession with full court-fee. It was decreed by the trial Court through judgment, dated 22-2-1992 against which appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the First Appellate Court through judgment, dated 8-2-1995. Revision petition filed by them has also been dismissed by the High Court through the impugned judgment, dated 2-10-2000 against which leave is sought.
5. After Once the petitioners having been held to have taken over forcible possession in violation of the order of the civil Court and punished for that, the respondent was entitled to the restoration of possession of the land in his favor. The Courts below in the fresh suit had done the same which the original Court which passed the order of conviction against the petitioners for violation of temporary injunction order should have done. Since justice has been done in this case, therefore, we are not inclined to interfere in the impugned judgment in A exercise of discretion vested in this Court under Article 185 of the Constitution in the matter of grant of leave and leave the ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that after the suit filed under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act had been dismissed, the respondent should not have been granted decree for the recovery of possession unless title in the property in the form of ownership had been established for decision in some other case.
6. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is dismissed and .