' JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J - This revision petition impugns the order of the learned trial Court dated 7-9-1993 and the order of the learned lower appellate Court dated 5-10-1993. By means of the impugned orders an application filed by the petitioners plaintiffs under Order XXXIX, C.P.C. Praying for temporary injunction was dismissed and at the same time the plaint filed by the petitioners- plaintiffs was also rejected on the ground that it did not disclose a cause of action.
2. The petitioners plaintiffs are owners of shops in Farooq Market which is situated in- a scheme of the LDA (respondent No,3) known as Allama Iqbal Town, Lahore.. In their plaint, the petitioners- plaintiffs have asserted that there is an open amenity plot which is.Part of the aforesaid scheme.
LDA has allotted the amenity plot to the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 for the purpose of establishing a petrol pump. The petitioners-plaintiffs have challenged this allotment because according to them they have a vested right in the scheme as .Sanctioned. They have also referred to the case titled Muhammad Sharif and others vs. Muzaffar Iqbal and others (1983 CLC 3091) to support their plea that they have a vested right in ensuring that amenity plots are not converted to any use different from that set out in the scheme.
3. The Courts below have held that there is nothing on the record to show that the petitiOners- plaintiffs have a vested right to ensure that the amenity plots could not be used for a different purpose such as the setting up of a petrol pump. It is for this reason that the two Courts below have held that the plaint does not disclose a cause of action.
4. The reasoning of the Courts below is erroneous. The plaint does show that the petitioners are owners of property in the Allama Iqbal Town Scheme and that as owners they have a right to all the amenities provided for in the scheme as sanctioned. It, therefore, follows that if the contents of the plaint arc proved by the petitioners- plaintiffs through evidence, they would be able to establish their right to have the amenity plots (including the disputed land) maintained for the use provided for in the scheme. It is this test which has to be applied for the purpose of determining if the plaint discloses a cause of action. The Courts below were therefore, not justified in holding that the plaint had not asserted any right vesting in the petitioners in respect of the suit-land.
5. For the foregoing reasons this petition'is allowed to the extent that the rejection of the plaint by the Courts below is set aside. The suit of the petitioners- plaintiffs shall, as a consequence be tried by the learned trial Courts as a regular cause in accordance with the law.