IJAZ UL AHSAN, J.---The facts leading to the instant petition are that the petitioners filed a suit for declaration with permanent injunction and consequential relief. It was stated in the suit that Munshi son of Nawab Muhammad was the owner in possession of land measuring two kanals, six marla, situated in Mauza Lidhar, Tehsil Cantt., District Lahore. The said Munshi died on 7-10-1986 leaving behind the petitioner, as his legal heir.
2. It was alleged before the learned trial Court that respondents Nos.1. And 2 had procured two fictitious and forged sale deeds, which were registered Documents Nos.4588 and 4587, dated 2-3- 1980, respectively. The Mutations were accordingly sanctioned bearing Nos. 3675 and 3674 respectively on 12-5-1991. The petitioners filed the aforesaid suit on 19-8-2009 seeking restraining order against the transfer of said land to any third party.
3. The suit as well as the petition for grant of temporary injunction was resisted by respondents Nos.1 and 2. The defence taken in written statement as well as reply to the stay application was that Munshi, predecessor of the petitioner, had alienated the suit property through registered sale- deeds against valuable consideration. The sale-deeds as , well as the mutation documents were produced by the respondents in support of their plea that they were bona fide purchasers of said land and had registered sale deeds in their favour. As opposed to the said documentary evidence, the petitioners did not produce any document in support of their contention that the sale-deeds were fictitious or forged The petitioners relied solely on averments made in their pleadings without producing any evidence to substantiate their stance. The learned trial Court after hearing both sides and examining the record found that neither a prima facie case nor any other ingredient necessary for grant of injunction were made out.
4. The order of the learned trial Court was assailed in appeal, which did not succeed.
5. The learned counsel submits that the impugned orders of the learned lower courts are non- speaking ones. The ingredients of prima facie case, irreparable loss and balance of inconvenience were clearly present in his favour. Relying upon 1998 CLC 362, the learned counsel submits that this Court has ample jurisdiction to interfere in case where prima facie case is made out and there is likelihood of multiplicity of proceedings.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the available record. I find that the sale deeds were executed and duly registered on 2-3-1980. The seller, Munshi lived for six years after execution of the sale deeds but never challenged the -same. The Mutations were sanctioned in the year, 1991 and no objection was raised against these till 2009 when the suit was filed.
7. In order to be entitled to the grant of injunction the petitioners had to make out a prima facie case and also satisfy the learned trial Court that the balance of convenience lay in their favour and they would suffer irreparable loss in case the relief prayed for was not granted.
8. On a preliminary examination of the respective cases of the parties, a tentative conclusion can be drawn that in the absence of any documentary evidence in favour of the of the petitioners and only on the basis of the allegations that the sale-deeds as well as the mutations were forged and fictitious, a prima facie, case in favour of the petitioners was not made out. It would require recoding of evidence even to attempt to discredit registered sale deeds which carry a presumption of genuineness attached to them. In comparison, the respondents have registered sale deeds, the property has been mutated in their favour and they are admittedly in possession since long.
Registered and public documents also have the benefit of presumptive notice attached to them.
As stated above the sale-deeds were registered in 1980 and mutations were entered in 1991. The suit has been filed in 2009.
9. The law as well as equities are in the opinion of this Court heavily in favour of the respondents at this stage. Likewise, ingredients of balance of inconvenience and irreparable loss, at this point in time, do not favour the petitioners, The learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to convince this Court that the learned lower courts have acted illegally or with material irregularity.
He has failed to point out any misreading or non-reading of evidence either.
10. In view of the above; I do not find any merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed in limine.