' MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, J.---The petitioner/plaintiff, Claiming to be the owner of plot measuring 6- Marlas having purchased through sale deed bearing No,9243 and agitating that it is a commercial property, filed the suit for declaration with permanent injunction, seeking the decree that she, being owner in possession of the suit plot, is entitled to use the same as commercial, the respondents be restrained to interfere in her possession and that they be directed to sanction the proposed plan after receiving requisite fee. Along with the suit, the petitioner filed the application for grant of temporary injunction, restraining the respondents from interfering in possession of the petitioner and using the plot in question. The respondents contested the both, inter alia, asserting on the basis of notification dated 2-7-2001 that the petitioner is liable to pay conversion fee on questioned plot. The learned trial Court dismissed petitioner's application for the grant of temporary injunction, vide order dated 28-2-2004 and her appeal, against the said decision, was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, vide impugned judgment dated 16-3-2004, hence the present revision petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is not liable to pay conversion fee, as the property purchased by her was commercial in nature and surrounded by other properties and thus both the Courts have erred in law in deciding the matter. He, when asked about the stage of the suit, submits that both the parties have concluded evidence and the case in now ripe up for arguments. Learned counsel for respondent No,1 has supported the impugned order/judgment.
3. I have heard the learned counsel and examined the available record. The questions involved in the present case are as to whether the petitioner is entitled to use property in dispute as commercial property without payment of conversion fee and whether the notification, dated 2-7- 2001, relied upon by respondent No,1, is attracted in case of the petitioner or not. Precisely these two questions are pending adjudication before the learned trial Court in petitioner's suit. The learned trial Court has framed as many as five issues, wherein issues Nos.3 and 5 cover the aforenoted two questions and total controversy, highlighted above. If, at this stage, any findings are given by this Court on the said controversies, that would in fact amount to deciding the suit and may prejudice cause of either of the parties before the learned trial Court, which of course will decide the issues involved in the suit in view of the evidence on record and law on the subject. Although both the Courts have given some findings on the said controversies, yet they are tentative in nature and would not affect the ultimate merits of the suit. It may be noted that this Court, while admitting revision petition to regular hearing, did not grant interim relief to the petitioner. To my mind, it would be in the fitness of things and interest of both the parties, if directions to be issued to the learned trial Court to decide the suit within specified period, as the present petition is pending since the year 2004.
4. In view of the above, the learned trial Court is directed to decide petitioner's suit after hearing the parties and of course in accordance with law, within a period of one month from today, even if it has to undertake day-to-day proceedings, without being impressed by the findings of its predecessor and the appellate Court rendered on the application for the grant of temporary injunction.
' Present petition stands disposed of with the above directions.