' ALI AKBAR QURESHI, J.---This revision petition is directed against the orders, dated 22-5-2008 and 5-9-2007, passed by the learned Courts below, whereby the application under Order XXXIX rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. Filed by the petitioners was disallowed.
2. Precisely the facts as stated in the petition are that the petitioners filed a suit for declaration against the respondents, alleging therein that there is a public park/open space measuring 1 Acre 5 Lanais 18 Marlas and 4 Sarsai, specified for children park adjacent to the Workers Colony, Joharabad. Further contended that the petitioners, who are residents of Joharabad are entitled to use the said public park and the respondents have no authority to convert the status of the said open space/park. Along with the suit application under Order XXXIX rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. For interim injunctive order was filed. The suit as well as the application for interim relief was contested by the other side by filing the written statement. In the written statement it was contended by the respondents that the land in question was owned by the Thal Development Authority and the Chairman of the said Authority being the competent authority allotted the same in the year, 1968 to the employees of the Thal Development Authority. Further asserted that the land in question was never used as park and was rightly allotted to the employees of the TDA for residential purposes.
Learned trial Court heard the arguments of the both the parties on the application for interim relief and dismissed the same. The petitioners being aggrieved of the said order preferred an appeal but the same was too dismissed by the learned District Judge. Hence this civil revision.
3. To satisfy myself and to resolve the controversy a direction was given to the DCO Khushab to file report regarding the land in question. The DCO in compliance of the order passed by this Court filed his. Report on 18-9-2008. In the report DCO stated that in the original master plan of Madina Town, Joharabad, which was approved by the TDA, the area in dispute was shown as open space/children park and is not liable to any conversion in the public interests.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner after examining the report made by the DCO submitted that if a direction is given to the learned trial Court to decide the main case within a shortest possible period but subject to maintain the status quo by both the parties regarding the property in question, the petitioners would be satisfied.
5. Learned Additional Advocate-General has also submitted that it is appropriate to pass an order to the learned trial Court to dispose of the matter with a shortest possible time.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the other respondents opposed the proposal made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Advocate-General, Punjab.
7. The record of the case reveals that admittedly the open space has been allotted to the different persons, whereas on the other hand the DCO Khushab has submitted in writing that in fact in the master plan the A area in dispute has been shown as public park and. Is not liable to conversion. As the matter is yet to be finally adjudication of the learned trial Court after recording the evidence of the respective parties, so without commenting upon the facts of the case, it is appropriate to pass a direction to the learned trial Court to dispose of the case expeditiously and preferably without a period of three months after receiving the order. Till the final adjudication of the case by the learned trial Court both the parties shall maintain status quo with regard to the land in question.
8. With these observations, the instant revision petition is disposed of with a direction to the learned trial Court to dispose of the matter within three months positively. No order as to costs.