ORDER CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.- The brief facts out of which present revision petition arises are that the petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell in the Court of Civil Judge 1st Class, Lahore along with an application for interim relief in 22-12-2004. On the basis of oral agreement to sell executed on 07-02-2004 between the petitioner and the respondent for consideration of Rs. 22.0. 000/-. The respondent has also received Rs. 5.0. 000/- as earnest money. After execution of the agreement in- question, the petitioner came to-know that the respondent is going to sell the property in-question to any other person instead of the petitioner. The petitioner being aggrieved filed the aforesaid suit.
The learned Trial Court dismissed the application of the petitioner for ad-interim relief vide order dated 05-04-2005. The petitioner being aggrieved preferred an appeal in the Court of learned Addl. District Judge, Lahore, who dismissed the same vide judgment dated 01-06-2005. Hence, the present revision petition.
2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that impugned order and judgment are not in accordance with record available before the Courts below. The respondent has admitted in paragraph No. 3 of written statement that the possession of the property in-question is with the petitioner as tenant and this fact was not considered by both the Courts below in its true perspective specially the first appellate Court has categorically mentioned in paragraph No.6 of the impugned judgment that the petitioner-appellant is not in possession of the property in- question, which is not inconsonance with record available before the Courts below. He further submits that the petitioner has attached affidavit along with revision petition in the presence of whom the petitioner paid Rs.5,00,000/- to the respondent in terms of agreement to sell dated 07- 12- 2004, therefore, the impugned order and judgment of both Court below are not sustainable in the eye of law. In-fact both the Courts below have decided the stay application of petitioner without judicial application of mind, which is condition precedent. He further submits that impugned judgment of first appellate Court is not in consonance with Section 10 of Contract Act.
He further submits that impugned order and judgment are not in accordance with law laid down by the superior Courts, In support of his contention, he relied upon "Ali Muhammad Khan . Vs Riaz- ud-Din Khera" (PLD 1981 Karachi 170).
3. I have given my anxious consideration to the contention of learned counsel of the petitioner and perused the record.
4. It is admitted fact that the petitioner has not secured receipt with regard to payment of Rs.5,00,000/- from the respondent as claimed by the petitioner that the petitioner has paid Rs.5,00,000/- to the respondent as earnest money in terms of agreement to sell, It is also settled principle of law that the parties are bound by their pleadings. The affidavits attached by the petitioner, are not mentioned in the grounds of appeal filed before the first appellate Court, therefore, I am not inclined to consider this ground with regard to payment qua affidavit which is not in consonance with law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in ''Murad Begum vs. Muhammad Rafique, etc." (PLD 1974 S.C.322). The stand taken by the petitioner in the contents of plaint, world be proved by the petitioner by producing evidence. Both the Court below have refused to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner with cogent reasons and this Court has very limited jurisdiction to interfere in the area of discretion, where' the Courts below have exercised their discretion with cogent reasons as per law laid down by this Court in "Agha Muhammad Afzal and 2 others, vs. Municipal Corporation, Rawalpindi and 10 others" (PLD 1992 Lahore 448). The Honourable Supreme Court in "Shahzada Muhammad Umar Beg. Vs. Sulatan Mehmood Khan and another1'
(PLD 1970 S.C. 139) has laid down three ingredients for grant of ad-interim relief, which are as follow:-
(i) The petitioner has to show his good prima- facie case in his favour.
(ii) The balance of convenience is in his favour.
(iii) The petitioner is likely to suffer an irreparable loss, if injunction shall not be granted.
The aforesaid proposition of law is also supported by law laid down by this Court in "M/s. National Construction Ltd. Vs. Aiwan-i-lqbal. Authority, Lahore" (PLD 1992 Lahore 86). The principle of lis- pendense is also applicable in this case. I have re-appraised the record attached by the petitioner with the grounds of revision petitioner; I do not find any infirmity or illegality committed by both the Courts below. The Privy Council has also laid down parameters to disturb the findings of the Courts below while exercising power under Section 115 of CPC in "N.S.Vankatagiri Ayyangar and another, vs. The Hindu Religious Endowments Board Madras" (PLD 1949 P.C. 26). The judgment of the Privy Council was considered and relied upon by this Court in "Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education, Lahore, vs. Syed Khalid Mehmood."(NLR 1985 Civil 114).
5. If is pertinent to mention here that the judgment of this Court is upheld by the Honourable Supreme Court in C.P. No. 1146 of 1984 vide judgment dated 31-03-1985 which was re-affirmed and approved by the Honourable Supreme Court in "Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore vs. Ghulam Qadir" (PLD 1988 S.C. 625). As mentioned above, I do not find any infirmity and illegality in the impugned order/judgment of Courts below, It is also settled principle of law that observations in interim orders are tentative in nature and cannot be taken into consideration at the time of deciding of main suit. However, the learned Trial Court is directed to decide the case without being influenced by the observations of this Court as well as First Appellate Court at the time of deciding the suit after recording of evidence of the parties.
With these observations, the revision is disposed of.