' HAFIZ ABDUL REHMAN ANSARI, J.---Through this revision petition the petitioner Abdul Khaliq son of Ali Bakhsh seeks setting aside of order dated 18-1-2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, D.G. Khan who dismissed the appeal of the petitioner filed against the dismissal of application under order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of, C.P.C. By the learned trial Court vide order dated 5-11-2009.
2. The brief facts of the instant civil revision are that the petitioner/plaintiff filed suit for declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of suit property captioned in the head note of the plaint.
The respondents have no concern whatsoever with the suit property. The entries in the revenue record as well as mutation No,1015 are against law and facts, collusive, ineffective qua the rights of the petitioner/ plaintiff. As a consequential relief the petitioner/plaintiff prayed for permanent injunction to the effect that respondents be restrained not to interfere into the possession of the petitioner/ plaintiff and not to alienate the suit property to any other person. Petitioner/plaintiff further alleged that the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents viz Faqir Muhammad agreed to sell the suit property against consideration of Rs,1,20,000 and the payment was made by the petitioner/plaintiff in the presence of the witnesses but after the death of Faqir Muhammad the suit property has been devolved upon the legal heirs of Faqir Muhammad. Along with the plaint application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C., was filed which was supported with the affidavit. The respondent filed the reply of the application. The learned trial Court after hearing both the parties dismissed the application vide its order dated 5-11-2009 and fixed the case for filing of reply of another application filed by the respondent/ defendant under order VII Rule 11, C.P.C. The petitioner/plaintiff assailed the order dated 5-11-2009 by filing an appeal before the learned District Judge, D.G. Khan. The learned Additional District Judge, D.G. Khan dismissed the same on 18-1-2010.
3. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner/plaintiff is in possession of the land in dispute which he purchased for consideration of Rs,1,20,000. The Mutation No,1015 was sanctioned in the name of respondents is not effective qua the rights of the petitioner/plaintiff. Both the Courts below committed illegality and irregularity in dismissing the application of the petitioner for temporary injunction.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the file.
5. Both the Courts below rightly observed that the respondents are the legal heirs of Faqir Muhammad from whom as the petitioner/plaintiff alleges the purchase of land for valuable consideration. Both the parties are closely related to each other. The learned Additional District Judge pointed out that the present petitioner/plaintiff did not file the suit in the life time of Faqir Muhammad. He should have filed the suit for specific performance against Faqir Muhammad if he resiled from the agreement to sell, if any, executed in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff. The agreement is claimed to be oral and the payment is also claimed by the petitioner/plaintiff in cash in the presence of witnesses. The amount is not paid through any documentary transaction and the agreement to sell is not also in existence in black and white. The respondent are the legal heirs of Faqir Muhammad and on his demise property devolves upon them. They are lawful owners. They cannot be stopped from using of the said land in any manner whatsoever they like. The entries in the revenue papers in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff are yet to be scrutinized at the time of recording of evidence. Proper form to file suit for the petitioner/ plaintiff would have to file suit for specific performance against Faqir Muhammad in his life time. The petitioner/plaintiff has yet to prove his prima facie case. Balance of convenience and irreparable loss for grant of temporary injunction has to prove by the petitioner/plaintiff and if one of the ingredients is missing temporary injunction can be refused. Both the orders passed by learned trial Court dismissing the application of the petitioner/plaintiff for temporary injunction and the order passed by learned Additional District Judge dated 18-2-2010 by which order of the learned trial Court was upheld are quite in consonance with law. There is no irregularity or illegality in both the orders of two Courts below.
Concurrent findings cannot be disturbed in a civil revision unless gross illegality is pointed out with regard to jurisdiction or defect in the orders impugned through civil revision.
6. In view of the above this revision petition being meritless is dismissed in limine.