JAMSHED RAHMAT ULLAH, J. --- The case of the petitioners is that their father. Wali Muhammad Shah son of Ghulam Nabi Shah was the owner of rand measuring 100 kanals situated in Chak No. 186-91 L, Tehsil and District Sahiwal. It has been contended that the petitioners' father Wali Muhammad Shah and respondent's father Noor Muhammad were real brothers, The petitioners were residing in Karachi as their father was serving in Pakistan Navy at Karachi. The petitioners further contends that their father authorized Noor Muhammad, father of the respondent, to manage property in his absence and also gave the same on Patta. According to the petitioners, when they and their father were residing at Karachi Noor Muhammad, the father of the respondents used to give them lease amount in Karachi. According to the petitioners, their father expired, on 6th of July, 2002 and the father of the respondent also expired in December, 2006, where upon the respondent stopped to pay the rent to the petitioners. It has further bee'n stated that the petitioners came to Sahiwal on 26.6.2008 and claimed rent from the respondent upon which respondent told that the petitioners are not the owners of the land in dispute and have no right to claim the rent. Upon this, respondent No. 3 checked the Revenue Record found that on the basis of forged sale-deed the respondent and his father Noor Muhammad got the land in dispute transferred in their favour.
2. The petitioners in these circumstances had no other option then to file suit for declaration with permanent injunction praying that they are the only legal heirs of Wali Muhammad ,Shah pertaining to land measuring 100 kanals in Chak No. 186-91L Tehsil and District Sahiwal and after the death of Wall Muhammad Shah they being the daughters of the deceased are the sole and exclusive owners of the land in dispute and the registered sale-deed No. 282 is illegal, void and is based on fraud. Alongwith the main suit the petitioners filed an application for of temporary injunction under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. The learned Civil Judge vide his order dated 16.12.2008 filed an appeal, which was fixed before Mr. Rasheed Ahmad, the learned Additional District Judge, Sahiwal. The learned Additional District Judge vide his order dated 9.3.2009 held that the balance of convenience does not lie in favour of the petitioners. Further held that the petitioners will not bear irreparable loss in case the application is not allowed. Further heid that balance of convenience also does not lie in favour of the petitioners. The appeal of the petitioners was dismissed.
3. Against the orders dated 16.12.2008 of the learned Civil Judge, Sahiwal and of the judgment- dated 9.3.2009 of the learned Additional District Judge, the petitioners have filed the present civil revision.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners intends that prima facie there is an arguable case in favour of the petitioners. Balance of convenience also lies in their favour and in case of refusal of temporary injunction further alienation of the land in dispute will cause in irreparable loss to the petitioners.
5. Conversely, the learned counsel for respondent argued that the :learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any illegality in the order passed by the learned Civil Judge and the learned Additional District Judge in the said case. He further contended that in the circumstances of the case, the doctrine of its pendens is applied. He referred to Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act and argued that in light of the said section, if the respondents, alienate the land in dispute to third party, then the addition of all future purchasers would not effect any right of the present petitioners. He lastly argued that the title revision petition is not maintainable under proviso to Section 115 of the C.P.C.
6. After hearing the arguments of both the parties, it is an admitted fact that the petitioners have failed to bring on record the registered sale-deed and other necessary documents, which could be of help to the petitioners in the decision of this petition. It is settled principle of law that for requirement of Section 115, C.P.C. The petitioner should furnish in support of the petition, copies of pleadings of the parties, documents and order of Courts below. If any material is withheld, the Court would be justified to presume that the documents which have not been produced would have been gone against the petitioners. In the present case, , the suit has been filed by the petitioners on the basis of sale-deed, which has yet to be proved during the trial. In case during the pendency of the trial if the land in dispute is transferred, the alienee of the land in dispute could also be impleaded to secure the light of the present petitioners.
Principle of lis pendens is attracted in the given situation.
7. After considering the foregoing facts I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Trial. Court and the learned lower Appellate Court. This revision is, therefore, dismissed.
Civil revision .