' HAFIZ TARIQ NASIM, J.--- Brief facts leading to this civil revision are that a suit for declaration with permanent injunction was filed in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Narowal along with the suit an application for interim injunction under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was also filed.
2. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Narowal after hearing both the parties dismissed the application for interim injunction and simultaneously rejected the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of C.P.C.
Aggrieved by this, the appeal was filed before the learned District Judge, Narowal who after examining all aspects of the matter dismissed the appeal through a well-reasoned and speaking judgment, dated 6-7-2005.
3. The learned Assistant Advocate-General, Punjab, Lahore argued the case at length and submits that the learned trial Court could not reject the plaint without framing the issues and recording evidence of the parties. Further submits that both the Courts below have failed to appreciate the intention of the donor of gift, adds that both the lower Courts misunderstood the judgments of Lahore High Court as well as of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. In support of his contentions, the learned Law Officer has placed reliance on 2005 SCM R 564 and 2007 M LD 1374. On the other hand, the respondents appeared in person supports the impugned judgments and opposed the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner with vehemence.
' Arguments heard; record perused.
5. Suffice it to refer Paras-8 and 9 of the judgment passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, which are reproduced as follows:-- "After the matter having been decided up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the defendants applied to the DDO (R), Narowal for possession of the disputed land in terms of the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court and their application was accepted and warrant for possession was issued. The plaintiffs filed an appeal against the order of DDO (R), Narowal which was also dismissed by the EDO(R), Narowal and thereafter they rushed to file the present suit concealing all the above mentioned facts. The Hon'ble High Court has very clearly directed that if possession of the disputed land is not vacated within one month voluntarily, the Assistant Commissioner, Narowal/ respondent shall deliver possession thereof in accordance with law. Admittedly the possession was not delivered to the defendants as per order of the Hon'ble High Court but the alleged agreement of gift, dated 6-10-1997 shows that the defendant No . 1 delivered the possession of the suit land to the plaintiffs whereas the possession was already with them. The plaintiffs are bound by the order of the Hon'ble High Court to deliver possession of the suit land to the defendants and the alleged agreement of gift is a vague and unusual document. There may be an agreement of sale but an agreement of gift is not understandable. The gift is always completed at the spot and agreement of gift is never executed. Even otherwise the plaintiffs have claimed ownership of the suit land on the basis of an agreement and there claim does not fall within the ambit of section 42 of the Specific Relief Act as an agreement does not create title of the suit land in their favour. The suit is not maintainable and the plaintiffs lack enforceable cause of action to file such like suit.
(9) In view of the above, the application for ad interim injunction is hereby dismissed and in the absence of any enforceable cause of action and proper form of the suit, the plaint also stands rejected under Order VIII Rule 11, C.P.C. With cost. Needless to reiterate that the plaintiffs must deliver the possession of the suit land to the defendants in compliance of the orders of the Hon'ble High Court as stated above file be consigned."
6. The findings recorded by the learned Civil Judge were endorsed by the learned District Judge, Narowal through judgment, dated 6-7-2005 and the relevant portion of the impugned judgment which is a simple answer to the contentions of the learned Assistant Advocate-General Punjab Lahore in the present case are as follows:-- "The most important aspect of the matter is that disputed deed, copy of which is available on the file purports to be an agreement simplicitor and not a complete gift deed. It was provided that the donee may enforce the terms of the agreement through execution of the gift deed or a decree for specific performance of the contract through the Court. An agreement in itself does not operate to create or transfer the title and the learned trial Court has drawn correct conclusion in view of the contents of the document. The intentions of the parties are explicitly incorporated in the disputed agreement and the plaintiffs/ appellants had only one right i.e, to get it enforced through execution of the deed or decree of the Court. No title was transferred on the basis of this agreement. The plaintiffs/ appellants cannot be declared owners of the property. The proper course for them is to obey the orders of the superior Courts of the country in letter and spirit and only then they may seek remedy in accordance with law. The public functionaries should not hamper the course of justice and must avoid making such matters complicated through misuse of process of law. The learned trial Court rightly held that the plaintiffs/appellants have no cause of action. The impugned judgment and decree do not suffer from any infirmity. The same are upheld and confirmed.
(8) For the reasons supra the appeal in hand is without merits and the same is hereby dismissed, with costs. The file of this Court be consigned to the record room and that of learned trial Court be sent back immediately."
7. After going through the impugned judgment and record of the case I am of the view that instead of avoiding further litigation the petitioner started a new round C of litigation in novel manner which cannot be approved at any cost, resultantly, the civil revision which otherwise is against the concurrent findings of both the Courts below is dismissed.