' SH. HAKIM ALI, J.-Ghulam Mustafa, present petitioner/plaintiff has challenged the validity of order dated B 15-2-2007, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad by which order dated 3-11-2006, passed by learned Civil Judge was confirmed.
2. Tersely, the facts are that Ghulam Mustafa, had filed a suit for declaration praying therein that order dated 10-11-2005, passed by Divisional Canal Officer, Hafizabad with regard to the restoration of "Khal" situated in between Kila Nos.4-5 and 4-7 of Square No.92 with police assistance was illegal, against facts and mala fides, therefore, ineffective upon the rights of the plaintiffs'In the aforesaid suit, application for grant of temporary injunction was also filed. The suit as well as application for interim injunction was resisted by Muhammad Malik, defendant No.3/respondent No. 2 and the aforementioned orders were passed.
' Aggrieved from those orders, the instant civil revision has been filed.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submits that order dated 10-11-2005, and order passed previously on 3-6-2004, 26-8-2004 and 3-12-2005 by Divisional Canal Officer, Deputy Collector and Sub-Divisional Canal Officer respectively were illegal and unlawful as the petitioner was not granted right of hearing before passing of the abovementioned order, therefore, the petitioner was entitled for grant of ad interim injunction till the decision of the suit.
4. Respondent No.2's learned counsel submits that the copy of original- order dated 10-11-2005 was not attached with the civil revision which was challenged in the suit, therefore, material documents having not been appended with this revision petition, the revision was not competent. Learned counsel further submits that orders dated 9-6-2004, 23-7-2005 and 3-12-2005, referred to above were not genuine order as had no sanctity in the eye of law. These orders were fake and forged, therefore, were not believable. These orders may be set aside.
5. Heard and record perused.
6. According to provision of section 115 of the C.P.C., it was responsibility of the petitioner to produce all the documents along with civil revision to which the petitioner was going to rely upon a document. I have also found that copy of order dated 10-11-2005 has not been attached while orders dated 26-8-2004, 3-12-2005 and 9-6-2004 have not been referred and disputed in the plaint. There is no mention that challenge was put to these orders in the plaint, therefore, the reference to these orders at this stage, cannot be approved and, permitted. The civil revision due to above facts is incompetent.
7. However, to examine the factual aspect of the case, I have noted that even from the orders, it is evident that sanctioned Khal was in existence in between Kila 4-5 and 4-7 of Square No.92 which was afterward dismantled. Upon the application of respondent'No.2, the above noted sanctioned Khal was directed to be restored. The petitioner has failed to prove, at present, on the record that.There was no sanctioned Khal in between Killas Nos.4-5 and 4-7 of Square No.92. Therefore, assessing tentatively, that the petitioner has no prima facie case, the petitioner has rightly been adjudged as not entitled for grant of ad interim relief during pendency of the suit, therefore the instant civil revision is dismissed. The above noted assessment is only for the disposal of application and it shall not prejudice the case of either party at the time of final disposal.