IQBAL HAMEED-UR-REHMAN, J.-The petitioners have filed this Civil Revision against order dated 17- 6-2006 passed by Civil Judge, Kehror Pacca, and order dated 8-7-2006 passed by Additional District Judge, Kehror Pacca. Vide order dated 17-6-2006 the learned Civil Judge refused to grant temporary injunction to the petitioner in a suit for Specific Performance of a contract. The appeal filed against that order was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge vide order dated 8- 7-2006.
2. Brief facts, necessary for adjudication of this Civil Revision, are that the petitioners filed a suit for specific performance of a contract in respect of sale of land measuring 20 Kanals situated in Mouza Bahawalgrah Tehsil Kehrore Pacca District Lodhran. The disputed land was owned by Muhammad Sharif, who agreed to sell the same to the .Petitioners for a consideration of Rs,2,70,000. The respondents filed written statement wherein they denied the execution of the agreement to sell. Along with the suit the petitioners had also filed an application under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. For grant of temporary injunction to the effect that till the decision of the suit the respondent be restrained to alienate the suit- land and also not to interfere into the possession of petitioners plaintiffs over the suit-land.
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for petitioners that the possession of the suit-land as well as payment of Rs:92,000 has been admitted. He has referred to para.3 of the written statement, wherein the respondents have stated as under:- {{URDU TEXT}} ' Secondly it is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioners that the petitioners are entitled to 20 Kanals of land but mutation dated 23-6-2003 was attested only to the extent of 10 Kanals, which has not been challenged by the respondents. It is further contended by the learned counsel for petitioners that Punchaiat Proceedings were conducted and the decision of Punchaiat was in favour of petitioner No, 1, which clearly stated that if Haq Nawaz, respondent, would not return Rs,2,70,000 and in case of default land measuring five begas would be transferred in the name of petitioner. It is further contended that Muhammad Shafi was not impleaded as party because he was not owner of the suit property and that being so he was not necessary party. According to the learned counsel both the Courts below have not taken the above "said material into consideration and thus committed patent, substantial and material irregularity. Reliance has been placed on the cases reported as 1991 CLC Note 255, 2004 YLR 361 and 1990 CLC 1601.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent has stressed that there is no proof of oral agreement; that where the relief can be obtained in the form of money, there is no irreparable loss; that from the plaint it is apparent that the sale was in favour of Atta Muhammad from Muhammad Shafi but Muhammad Shafi has not been impleaded as party and that no document regarding the possession has been produced by the petitioner. The /learned counsel has also denied the proceeding of Punchaiat and stated that the signatures are fictitious and Annexure-I bears no signature to show the presence of respondent; that it is from the heirs of respondent, who is a tenant, from whom Rs,92,000 is to be recovered and it has wrongly been interpreted that the possession of petitioners is admitted in the written statement. It is further contended that there is concurrent findings of facts recorded by the both the Courts below; that prima facie the petitioner has failed to make out a case; that the balance of convenience is also in favour of the respondents as where an alternate remedy can be sought there is no irreparable loss. It is also alleged that the suit is barred by time.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for parties and gone , through the record. Pre-admission notice had been issued in this case and detailed arguments have been advanced by both the learned counsel for parties, this case is, therefore decided as an admitted case. From the tentative assessm ent of the documents annexed with this petition the petitioners have been able to show that an agreement to sell was in hand. Decision of the Panchaiat and Fard Mutation with regard to 10 Kanals indicates existence of an agreement. Further para.3 of the written statement of defendant/ respondent shows that the petitioners are in possession of the land as tenant. All this clearly shows that the petitioners are able to show a prima facie case, which entitled them to the grant of temporary injunction in the form of status quo. Accordingly, this Civil Revision is accepted.
The impugned orders dated 17-6-2006 and 8-7-2006 are set aside. The application of petitioner for grant of temporary injunction is accepted to the extent, that status, quo shall be maintained till the final decision of the main suit.