' SYED ASGHAR HAIDER, J.--- The petitioner filed an application under section 12(2), C.P.C.
Challenging an ex part decree passed in favour of respondent No,3, along with this petition an application also was filed for temporary injunction. The matter was contested by respondent No,3 and after hearing the parties the trial Court granted an injunction to the petitioner as prayed for.
Aggrieved thereof respondent No,3 filed an appeal, it was contested by the-petitioner and thereafter, the same was allowed, reversing the order of the trial Court. Aggrieved thereof the present petition by the petitioner.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial Court was persuaded to grant injunction after hearing the parties and perusing record, the judgment clearly was obtained, fraudulently and consequently is nullity in the eye of law. The purpose of the respondent was to grab the disputed property and thus, material facts were concealed.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent vehemently contested the petition pleading that the order of the trial Court is patently illegal and not in consonance with legal dictates, as the decree in question has not been set aside, therefore, grant of temporary relief in form of injunction is unwarranted, the petitioner also is protected by the doctrine of lis pendens, therefore, the grant of injunctive order was against the settled principles of law.
4. Heard.
5. The perusal of the impugned order passed by the lower Appellate Court reflects that it is full of contradictions, the relevant portion while granting relief reads: "The learned trial Court thus has not rightly accepted the application filed by the respondents for issuance of temporary injunction. There is no ground for acceptance of this application. The temporary injunction granted by the trial Court is vacated and this appeal is accepted."
' The contradiction between the lines referred to above is so clear that it cannot withstand the test of judicial application of mind, the record reflects that the application for temporary injunction filed by the petitioner was granted by the trial Court, thus, there is error apparent in the analogy applied by the lower Appellate Court, therefore, the impugned order is patently illegal. Notwithstanding the above contradiction it is clear from the pleadings of the parties that the decree challenged was procured ex parte, valuable rights of booth parties are involved in the litigation, it was in these circumstances that the trial Court was persuaded to grant temporary injunction. The analogy applied by the trial Court is consistent with sound judicial principles and also of the facts of the case, it also will not be out of place to mention here that in case the relief prayed for is not granted it would result into multiplicity of litigation and further aggravate the agony of parties. The impugned order, therefore, also is not tenable on this ground as well. Lastly the doctrine of lis pendens does protect the rights of the aggrieved party, but in no way is an adequate measure to avoid multiplicity of litigation, therefore, in the peculiar circumstances of the present matter it not only is essential to maintain the present status of the property but equitable justice also demands the same. Injunctive relief is discretionary based on prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss, all the three ingredients heavily lie in favour of the petitioner at this stage, therefore, the impugned order is not tenable.
' For what has been discussed above, this petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the order of the trial Court restored. However, the trial Court is directed to positively conclude the proceedings before 30th September, 2009.