' MUHAMMAD ALAM KHAN, J.--- Noor-ud-Din and others petitioners have called in question the order, dated 20-6-2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-X, Peshawar vide which the appeal of the petitioner-defendants was dismissed and the order of Mr. Ihsan-ulHaq, Civil Judge-II, Peshawar in Suit No,662/1, dated 5-4-2007 accepting the application for the issuance of temporary injunction filed by plaintiff-respondent was accepted and the defendant-petitioner was restrained from changing the nature of the property in suit and alienation of the same.
2. Briefly narrated the facts of the case are that Muhammad Din Khan, plaintiff-respondent No,1 filed a suit for declaration and also for partition-cum-decree for the issuance of permanent injunction restraining the defendant to interfere in the suit-land or to change the nature of the property fully detailed in the head notes of the plaint along with the plaint, the plaintiff had also filed an application for ad interim injunction under Order XXXIX, rule 1, C.P.C. The learned trial Court after calling for replication and hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the data available on the record granted, the ad interim injunction as prayed for vide order, dated 5-4-2007 in Suit No,682/1. Noor-ud-Din etc. Defendant-respondent filed an appeal before the District Judge, Peshawar which came for hearing before Mr. Fazal Sattar Khan, Additional District Judge-X, Peshawar and who vide Civil Appeal No,15/14 decided on 26-6- 2007 dismissed the appeal and maintained the prohibitory order of the trial Court. Now Noor-ud- Din and Mir Alam Khan sons of Muhammad Khan petitioners-defendants have come to this Court in revision petition.
3. This case came for preliminary hearing before this Court today when the case was called Muhammad Din respondent was also present and he accepted the notice. Both the parties were heard in support of their respective contentions. There is no need to go in detailed discussion and reproduction of the arguments of the parties. Suffice is to say that the learned trial Court granted the ad interim injunction on 5-4-2007 which under the provision of Order XXXIX, rule 2(b), C.P.C. Had its natural life for six months unless and until it was extended and that too, for reasons to be recorded and the same communicated to this Court. Perusal of the record reveals that neither the ad interim injunction has been extended nor there was any request for extension of the same by the plaintiff-respondent so in view of the dictum laid down in Syed Muhammad Shah Jehan Shah and 22 others v. Fazal-ur-Rehman and 45 others 1996 CLC 1572 and also in the case of Gul Haider v.
Dr. Asad Zia 2003 YLR 913. The ad interim injunction granted by the learned trial Court automatically expired after the lapse of six months.
4. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, as there is no subsisting the order of ad interim injunction, so this revision petition has become infructuous and thus, disposed of accordingly. The plaintiff-respondent will however, be at liberty to move afresh. For the issuance of ad interim injunction which the learned trial Court will independently consider after hearing the learned counsel for the parties. The status quo, however, in the interest of justice, will remain intact till 15-4-2008 and the parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 9-4-2008.