The petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell land measuring 384 Kanals 17 Marlas situated in Mauza Kotla, Tehsil and District Haripur. It was alleged therein that the defendant/respondent, on 23.9.2004, entered into an agreement with the petitioner/plaintiff for the sale of land mentioned above for a consideration of Rs, 1,53,94,000/- i,e, @ Rs, 40,000/- per Kanal.
An amount of Rs, 10,00,000/- was paid to the defendant at the time of execution of the said agreement and the plaintiff was willing and eager to pay the remainder of the sale consideration to the defendant/ respondent against proper transfer of the land in dispute. Alongwith the plaint an application for temporary injunction, requiring the defendant/ respondent from further alienating the suit property, was also filed.
2. The defendant/respondent filed written statement and also reply to the temporary injunction application. On 5.11.2005 the learned trial Court was pleased to dismiss the application for temporary injunction and on 28.9.2006 the learned Appellate Court was also pleased to dismiss the appeal filed by the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner heard and available record gone through.
3. It is noticed that the defendant had categorically stated in the written statement that the plaintiff/petitioner remained unsuccessful in paying the balance of the sale consideration within the stipulated time i,e, months from the date of execution of the agreement to sell. It was further stated that the petitioner/plaintiff was also served with a written notice to the said effect and ultimately after the expiry of the period provided in the agreement the land in dispute was sold away to third person by the defendant/respondent.
4. It is also seen on the record that the total area of the disputed land measuring 384 Kanals 17 Marlas and the entire sale consideration of Rs, 1,53,94,000/- as alleged in the plaint, does not find mention in the agreement to sell dated 23.9.2004. Undoubtedly, the said agreement has been made basis of the suit filed by the petitioner. In the circumstances, when the plaintiff/petitioner, prima facie,, had no claim regarding the area of 384 kanals 17 marlas owned by the defendant/respondent an order restraining the defendant/respondent from alienating the said area Was not justifiable.
5. For the aforesaid reasons it is found that the learned two Courts have correctly appreciated the facts of the case and have rightly ( declined to exercise their jurisdiction in terms of issuing temporary injunction against the respondent/defendant. The said findings, therefore, do not merit any interference by this Court in revisional jurisdiction.
The revision petition in hand being meritless is dismissed in limine.