'KHALIL AHMAD, J.--- Petitioner filed a suit for possession through specific performance of an agreement against the respondent on 14-12-2005. Along with the suit an application under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. Was also filed.
2. The suit as well as the application was contested by the respondent and the learned Civil Judge vide order, dated 3-10-2006 dismissed the application of the petitioner and accepted the application under Order I, rule 10, C.P.C. Filed by the contesting respondent. The petitioner filed an appeal against dismissal of the application for temporary injunction which too was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, vide order, dated 9-2-2007. Hence this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner is in possession of the property in dispute and is entitled to the protection of possession and has relied upon the copies of Khasra Girdawari for the year 1993-96.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. It is on record that the petitioner earlier filed identical suit on the same cause of action and on the same pleas in which the learned Civil Judge held that the Central Government was a necessary party because property in dispute was owned by the Central Government and directed the petitioner to submit amended plaint impleading Central Government in the array of respondents. This order was not complied with and as such plaint was rejected for non- compliance of Court's order by the learned Civil Judge vide order, dated 3-10-2006. The appeal filed thereagainst was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, on 4-5-2001 and the matter came up for hearing before this Court in Civil Revision No,1389 of 2001 which was also dismissed as withdrawn on 14-10-2005..
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the suit has been filed on the new cause of action as the respondents have been conferred proprietary rights and in this regard mutation has been attested in their favour.
7. Learned counsel could not prove the same through documentary evidence before the learned Additional District Judge, and the property remained in the ownership of Central Government.
Shams Din the executant of the agreement to sell was sole and exclusive owner of the property in dispute. Mst. Manzooran Bibi, Mst. Sabran Bibi and Mst. Amiri Bibi were also co-sharers who have categorically denied having made any agreement with the appellant/plaintiff or having given any authority to the executant Shams Din to decide the fate of their shares. Earlier suit of similar nature of the petitioner has already been dismissed. Khasra Girdawari has been produced by the petitioner for the year 1993-96 to show the petitioner to be in possession of the property in dispute and even in those documents Central Government has been shown as the owner of the property and again they have not been arrayed as defendants.
8. The learned trial Court as well as the learned Additional District Judge, rightly declined the grant of temporary injunction to the petitioner.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to point out any illegality in the impugned orders warranting interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. The orders of both the Courts below are upheld and this petition being devoid of any force is dismissed.