In a suit for permanent injunction that the petitioners-plaintiffs are owner in possession of the suit property under partition since the last 31 years, the application of the petitioners under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, CPC seeking temporary injunction was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, Multan vide order dated 5.12.2005. Against the said order, the appeal filed by the petitioners was also dismissed, by the learned Additional District Judge, Multan vide order dated 20.3.2010. The instant civil revision under Section 115, CPC, is directed against the said concurrent orders of both the Courts below.
2. The respondents-defendants contested the suit as well as the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, CPC by filing replies.
3. In support of the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, CPC, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners are in possession of the suit property since long, hasra, Girdawari is also in their names; they are owners of the suit property but the respondents are adamant to illegally dispossess them from the said property; that they have prima facie a fit arguable case in their favour as they are owners under private partition over the suit property.
Further contends that the report of the Local Commission is also in favour of the plaintiffs- petitioners, that both the Courts have committed illegality and irregularity in dismissing the application of the petitioners filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC; both the Courts did not peruse the documentary evidence appended with the plaint hence the orders of both the Courts are based on misreading and non-reading of the documents on the record.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at length. There are concurrent findings of the two Courts below with regard to the land in dispute that the petitioners could not produce any documentary proof of family partition of the land in dispute. Both the Courts rightly observed that both the parties are joint owners of the property in dispute and the petitioners-plaintiffs are demanding injunction against their co-sharers as every co-sharer has possession on each and every inch of the joint property. If the petitioners-plaintiffs want to get any interim injunction, first of all they should move an application for partition in accordance with law. Since both the parties are co-sharers in the suit property, therefore, no temporary injunction can be granted against the co- owners. The case of the respondents is that petitioner/plaintiff is in possession of more than his entitlement in joint property, which stance is taken in the written statement and reply to the application. No proof of family partition/distribution of the property has been brought on the file.
Further, when there are concurrent findings with regard to facts and law, unless there is jurisdictional defect in the orders passed by the two Courts below, the High Court cannot interfere in the said concurrent findings in exercise of power under Section 115, CPC. There is no jurisdictional defect in the orders of both the Courts below. The findings of both the Courts are based on cogent reasons. There is also no illegality or irregularity in the said impugned orders.
5. For the reasons discussed above, I find no merit in the civil revision, which is dismissed in limine.