MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J. Instant civil revision assailed the Order dated 06.12.2006 recalling vacating the status quo order, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sargodha.
2. Precisely relevant facts are that he petitioner claimed to have entered into an agreement with the respondents Nos. 4 to 10 for purchase of land measuring 250 kanals, 5 marlas situated in Mauza Sabbowal, Tehsil Shahpur, District Sargodha; According to him the above- referred respondents failed to perform their part of contract which necessitated filing of suit for specific performance of the agreement where under he asserted to have paid an amount of Rs. 6,56,906/- at the rate of Rs. 21,000/- per Acre and in return respondents Nos. 4 to 10 were said to have delivered possession to the petitioner. He further pleaded that he had been ready/willing to perform his part of contract but the matter of transfer of land was put OF by the respondents, on one pretext or the other, necessitating institution of suit. The petitioner also moved an application under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2, C.P.C, praying injunction for protection of his possession allegedly delivered under the asserted agreement to sell dated 11.4.1985.
3. Respondents Nos. 4 to 10 being defendants in the suit contested the same and opposed the issuance of temporary injunction by filing their written statements written - replies. The learned Civil Judge, seized of the matter, after hearing the parties, dismissed the suit filed by the petitioner vide his judgment/decree dated 22.11.2006.
I
4. The petitioner being aggrieved of dismissal of his suit by the Trial Court, filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge. There again he moved an application for protection of his possession whereupon the Appellate Court initially directed a status quo to be maintained but after hearing the concerned parties, the injunctive order was recalled vacated on 6.12.2006, pending appeal of the petitioner. He has now filed instant revision petition for ad judgment of concurrent orders of refusal to issue temporary injunction regarding possession over the suit land.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have examined the record, appended herewith. Undisputedly, owners of the suit land (respondents Nos. 4 to 10) sold their land to some third parties but the same was pre-emoted by Muhammad Hayat (respondent No. 11) and his suit for possession through pre-emption was decreed by this Court., Respondents Nos. 4 to 10. Assailed the pre-emption decree granted in favour of respondent No. 11 before the Honourable Supreme Court but without any success. Review petition filed by respondents Nos. 4 to 10 before the Honourable Supreme Court was also dismissed, which gave finality to the decree for possession in favour of respondent No. 11. In this factual drop-back, issuance of injunction prayed would amount to deprive the respondent No. 11 of the fruits of decree for possession through preemption in his favour maintained up to the apex Court of this country which is not just fair.
6. Above all, the petitioner simply claimed an agreement to sell from the respondents Nos. 4 to 10 which does not create any right, title or interest in the suit property. His suit for specific performance has already been dismissed by the Trial Court on 22.11.2006 arid the judgment/decree of the Trial Court is subject to scrutiny in appeal before the learned Additional District Judge thus at the present, he has no prima facie/arguable case in his favour. Injunction prayed cannot be issued to obstruct lawful execution proceedings in view of the provisions of Section 56(a) of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. Even otherwise, if the petitioner is deprived of his claimed possession, he can have it back through process of the Court in case of his success in his.* suit for specific performance.
There is no probability OF any irreparable loss injury to the petitioner whereas the same will ensue to respondent No. 11 who cannot be deprived of usufruct of the suit property, inspire of the fact that entire price of which he has already deposited.
7. Balance of convenience also lies in favour of respondent No. 11 and there is no chance 6f any inconvenience to the petitioner. Scan of record and impugned order, revealed that controversy was correctly put to rest by the Court of appeal, without committing any error of law/facts. The impugned order is not tainted with any illegality irregularity thus the same is not amenable to interference under Section 115, C.P.C.
8. For the reasons noted above, no case for interference in revisional jurisdiction of this Court was made out and instant petition being devoid of . Any merit, is dismissed in limine.