1. ' MUZAFFAR ALI, J.--- This revision petition has arisen out of the orders, dated 17-9-2007 passed by learned Civil Judge No,2, Gilgit and dated 29-10-2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gilgit. Whereby, the learned trial Judge has directed the present petitioners to issue 250 bags of wheat per day to the respondent and the learned Additional District Judge has confirmed the same by dismissing the 1st appeal filed by the present petitioners, hence this revision before this Court.
2. The summary, of the facts of the case, is that, the present respondent filed Suit No,149 of 2007 before the Court of learned Civil Judge No,2 Gilgit for declaration cum consequential relief, to restore the original approved daily wheat quota i,e, 250 bags. The plaint accompanied with an application under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2 read with sections 151 and 94, C.P.C. For issuance of 250 bags wheat of 100 Kgs per day or 200 bags of wheat per day, pending disposal of the suit. The learned trial Judge heard the application ex parte and granted the same as prayed for, till final disposal of the suit. The present petitioners went to the 1st appeal against the temporary injunction order, dated 17-9-2007, but for no avail, hence this petition.
3. ' I heard the learned Assistant Advocate-General for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent and also the learned counsel Mr. Muhammad Issa for the applicants in Civil Miscellaneous No,124 of 2007 the learned A.A.-G. Assailed both the impugned orders on two points that, (a) the impugned order passed by the learned trial Judge is unheard as such it is hit by well- settled principle "Audi Alterm Partem" and also is in violation of Order XXXIX, rule 3, C.P.C. (b) The learned trial Court has created an ante-status quo situation through impugned order while the averments of the plaint itself transpire the fact that, the plaintiffs have acted upon the orders, dated 17-11-2001. And 23-8-2007 by receiving reduced quota of wheat and at the time of institution of the suit the plaintiffs were receiving their quota of wheat as fixed by the order, dated 23-8-2007.
4. The learned Additional District Judge has also ignored the above stated infirmities of law committed by the learned trial Judge as such both the orders are liable to be set aside.
5. ' The learned counsel for the present respondent is confronted to the above points. He tried to meet the same with the contention that, (a) the learned trial Judge has passed the order after issuance of the notice to the present petitioners and (b) the orders, dated 17-11-2001 and 23-8-2007 are without any legal sanction as such the impugned orders of the learned lower Courts are tenable in the eyes of law, but he frankly conceded the fact that the plaintiff has received, the reduced quota of wheat till the time of institution of the suit.
6. ' I have gone through the record of the case in the light of the points raised by the learned counsel.
7. As far the 1st point is concerned, the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court itself reveals that, the same is ex parte and unheard, though the present respondents have been issued notice, in such a situation, the learned trial Judge might have utmost granted ad interim order, instead, he has passed a confirmed temporary injunction against the present petitioners without hearing them so he has erred in law, but I am not going to remand the case to the trial Court for rehearing the parties on the subject, for the reason that, the parties have exhaustively argued the merits of the application before me and I may pass order on the merits of the application and remittance of the case on this score, may cause extra hurdles and a second series of litigation on the point of the temporary injunction may ensue.
8. ' The contention of the learned counsel for present respondent on the point (b) could not persuade me for the reasons that, indeed the present petitioners have called the orders, dated 17-11-2001 and 23-8-2007 to be ultra vires through the suit but the point is yet to be determined by the trial Court on merits and through a tentative assessment, the above orders could not be thrown away particularly to create an ante-status quo situation in dealing with an application for temporary injunction. The impugned order at this stage seems to be a decree, as prayed for, in favour of the plaintiff, without thorough consideration and without framing issues and going into proof and rebuttal of the same, the proper way for the trial Court, while dealing with the application was to maintain status quo prevailing at the time of institution of the suit and which is admittedly that, the plaintiffs have received the reduced quota.
9. ' The upshot of the above discussion is that, the revision petition is granted and the impugned orders are set aside, but status quo prevailing at the institution of the suit is maintained, pending disposal of the suit. The applications for impleading of parties are sent to the trial Court to dispose of the same on merits.
10. ' Revision petition along with C.M. No,124 of 2007 disposed of accordingly.