' SYED SAKHI HUSSAIN BOKHRI, J.---In this constitutional petition the petitioner has prayed for setting aside order dated 15-11-2003 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Lahore and order dated 4-10-2003 passed by learned Civil Judge, Lahore.
2. Relevant facts for the disposal of this writ petition are that Liaqat Ali (respondent No,3) filed a suit for mandatory and permanent injunction and stated that he was running business of advertisement with the name and style of Messrs Evershine Neon Sign and had earned goodwill among the business community. He further stated that in the years 1993 he was allotted site for installation of hoarding in front of Main Boulevard Gulberg, Lahore, close to the wall of Gym Khana Club on yearly rent basis. He maintained that in the years 1998 road was expanded and plaintiff was asked to remove hoarding with the commitment that later on same site would be re-allotted to him and on the commitment of the petitioner/defendant he removed his hoarding. He asserted that road was completed in year 1999 whereupon he approached the authority (petitioner) for re- allotment of said site but defendant/ petitioner refused to accept his request. The plaintiff further asserted that he submitted application before worthy Prime Minister of Pakistan for redressal of his grievance who sent a letter to Chief Minister, Punjab with the direction that proper action should be taken on the application of the plaintiff-respondent. He approached the officials of defendants- petitioner to redress his grievance but no action was taken. He stated that defendant had allowed many other businessm en to fix their hoardings but he was not allowed due to some personal reasons hence their act amounted to discrimination, therefore, he was constrained to file suit.
Along with suit plaintiff-respondent also filed application for issuance of temporary injunction.
However on 29-7-2003 plaintiff-respondent filed application under section 151, Cr.P.C. For permission to fix neon sign at Main Boulevard Gulberg, Lahore adjoining wall of Gym Khana Club, Lahore. The petitioner filed reply to the same. After hearing the parties, learned trial Court accepted the application brought by respondent-plaintiff vide order dated 4-10-2003. The petitioner filed revision petition against the said order, which was dismissed by, learned Additional District Judge, Lahore vide order dated 15-11-2003. Hence, this writ petition.
3. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
4. As mentioned above respondent-plaintiff (Liaqat Ali) had filed suit for mandatory and permanent injunction and petitioner filed written statement. However on 29-7-2003 respondent- plaintiff filed application under section 151, C.P.C. And prayed that he be permitted to install the hoarding, which was accepted. The case of petitioner is that in the main case respondent-plaintiff had prayed for issuance of a direction to petitioner-defendant to allot him said space for fixation of hoarding as he had pre-emptory right for re-allotment of the said site, therefore trial Court could not pass impugned order on the application under section 151, C.P.C. Also that application for issuance of temporary injunction was pending but learned trial Court even without deciding the same passed impugned order which shows that actually suit brought by plaintiff-respondent has been decreed, therefore impugned order is liable to be set aside. However the case of respondent- plaintiff is that under section 151, C.P.C. Learned trial Court had jurisdiction to issue impugned order.
The plaint shows that respondent-plaintiff had prayed that defendant-Authority be restrained from allotting disputed site to any body and that they be directed to allot the disputed space to him. His prayer reads as under:-- "It is therefore, humbly prayed that the suit may kindly be decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, permanently restraining the defendant-Authority to allot the said disputed site to anybody else.
' It is further prayed that defendant Authority may kindly be directed to allot said space to the plaintiff fixation of hoarding, as the plaintiff has pre-emptory right for re-allotment of the said site.
' Any other relief which this honourable Court may deem fit and proper may also by granted."
' Similar prayer was made in the application under Order XXXIX, rules 1, 2 read with section 151, C.P.C.
For grant of temporary injunction which reads as under:-- "It is therefore, respectfully prayed that during the pendency of the suit, respondent be restrained from allotting the aforesaid site to any body else. To this effect order be passed in the interest of justice."
5. So it is clear that in main case plaintiff-respondent had prayed for issuance of a direction to the defendant-petitioner to allot him disputed place for fixation of hoarding as he had pre-emptory right for re-allotment of the same. As such application under section 151, C.P.C. Could not be allowed without recording evidence of the parties. The order dated 4-10-2003 shows that learned trial Court allowed the plaintiff-respondent to fix neon sign. It means that suit has been decreed. As such order dated 4-10-2003 is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
6. The order dated 15-11-2003 shows that learned Additional District Judge decided the revision petition without perusal of record and acted in haste. As such order dated 15-11-2003 is illegal and the same is liable to be set aside. So in the circumstances of the case I find that impugned orders have resulted in Miscarriage of justice, which justifies interference by this Court.
7. The upshot of the above discussion is that this writ petition is allowed and impugned orders are accordingly set aside. However in the circumstances of the case it would be appropriate that case be decided expeditiously, therefore trial Court is directed to decided the case within 2 months after receipt of this order. No order as to costs.