' SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, J.---Through the instant revision petition the petitioner has assailed the legality and validity of the order, dated 29-6-2005, passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Lahore, whereby he dismissed the appeal against order, dated 30-10-2004 of learned Civil Judge, Lahore dismissing application for ad interim injunction.
2. The facts and backdrop of instant controversy, giving rise to this cumbersome litigation, the narrow compass are that the petitioner was owner of land measuring 1-Kanal and 58 Sq. Ft.
Comprising of Khasra No,1136 (Plot No,41-C) in village Nawankot, Lahore. She raised construction of a house on the said plot in the year, 1.975, after getting approved building plan from Lahore Municipal Corporation. Subsequently, in the year, 1977 Gulshan-e-Ravi Scheme was launched by the Lahore Development Authority (LDA). According to the parametersof the said scheme the aforesaid house of the petitioner was to be adjusted, provided it was in conflict with the contours of the said scheme. However, in the year, 1985 the petitioner received a notice from LDA wherein it was alleged that she had constructed the house illegally and as such she was required to remove the constructions. Aggrieved by this the petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction against respondents Nos. 1 to 3 restraining them from demolishing the construction of the aforesaid house.
The suit was contested by the LDA. It was, inter-alia, alleged that the petitioner had made encroachment on the adjoining plot No,9-C. Learned Trial Court framed the necessary issues, recorded evidence of the parties and after hearing the parties proceeded to decree the suit vide judgment, dated 24-9-1995 it was concluded that the petitioner had raised construction on Plot No,41-C and no construction had been raised on plot No,9-C. It was further concluded that Plot No,41-C opens towards plot No,9-C. The aforesaid judgment and decree stood the scrutiny of the hierarchy of Courts. For, an appeal filed against the said judgment and decree, was dismissed and a revision petition also met the fate of dismissal. Petition for Leave to Appeal was dismissed by the Apex Court.
3. From here started down hill journey of the case. Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 again asked the petitioner to remove her house and boundary wall towards the southern side of her house, which, according to the LDA, was an encroachment on plot No,9-C, which had been allotted to respondent No,4. This, as is discern from paragraph No,5 of the plaint, prompted the petitioner to bring a suit for declaration. Along with the suit an application for ad interim injunction was filed restraining the respondents from taking possession or interfering in the possession of the petitioner. As noted supra, the application for ad interim injunction was dismissed by the Civil Judge seized of the matter and the appeal filed, against the said order was also dismissed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Lahore through the impugned order. Hence, this revision petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken me through the earlier round of litigation to contend that the construction of the house of the petitioner was protected by the decree of Civil Court, which was affirmed even by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. Learned counsel has thus emphasized that the aforesaid construction cannot be permitted to be raised, by illegally carving out plot No,9-C. Learned counsel has thus contended that both the Courts below have committed illegality and material irregularity in deciding the relief of ad interim injunction.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents/LDA, on the other hand, has contended that Plots Nos.41-C and 9-C are different and distinct and the petitioner cannot lay claim on plot No,9-C, which has validly been transferred to respondent No,4. Learned counsel has thus maintained that the petitioner had failed to make out prima facie case and as such the relief of ad-interim injunction was justifiably refused to her. Learned counsel for respondent No,4 has adopted the arguments of the learned counsel for LDA and supported the impugned orders.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. I am afraid that the controversy has not been resolved in its true perspective. Both the Courts below appear to have been swa yed by the fact that the petitioner has no concern with Plot No,9-C.
This fact, though not without caveat, may be relevant at the time of final resolution of controversy.
Through the application for ad interim injunction the petitioner was merely seeking to restrain the respondents from causing interference in her possession. At the cost of repetition it may be mentioned that the grievance of LDA in the earlier round of litigation was that the petitioner had encroached upon Plot No,9-C. But this allegation was comforted by the Civil Court by holding that the petitioner had raised construction on Plot No,41-C as back as in the year, 1975 that no construction had been raised on Plot No,9-C and that Plot No,9-C opens towards Plot No,41-C.
There was no allegation that the petitioner had made fresh encroachment on Plot No,9-C. It would thus follow that at the time of filing the suit, from which has arisen the instant revision petition, the petitioner was apprehending interference in her house, which she had constructed as back in the year, 1985 and the construction of which was protected by the Apex Court of the country .
8. Viewed in such a perspective the petitioner had succeeded in making out prima facie good case in her favour. She is apprehending interference in the possession of her house, so balance of convenience was obviously in her favour. The apprehension of irreparable loss is also there.
9. For the foregoing, I am of the considered and explicit view that both the Courts below have committed illegality and material irregularity in declining relief of ad interim injunction to the petitioner. Consequently, I accept this revision petition and set aside the orders of both the Courts below. Resultantly, the application moved by the petitioner for ad interim injunction in her suit for declaration and consequential relief, is accepted and the parties are directed to maintain status quo, in all respect, till the decision of the suit. No order as to costs.