This Civil Revision under Section 115 of the CPC seeks to challenge an order of Addl. District Judge, Sheikhupura dated 13.07.2007 whereby he maintained the order of the trial Court dated 27.06.2007 passed by Civil Judge 1st Class, Sheikhupura declining to issue interim injunction.
2. On 23.05.2007 the present petitioner as plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction alleging that part of the suit land belonging to his grand father was slashed away and reserved for Asaish Deh in the consolidation proceedings held for the village in the year 1983. The mutation of change of ownership No, 715 dated 17.08.1983 was sought to be declared illegal, m alafide and without lawful authority. A permanent injunction was also sought against further transfer of the land in question.
3. The learned trial Court declined to issue an injunctive order after it was informed that the suit land had further been transferred in favour of Respondent No, 1, the Education Department for construction of a public high school in the village. As noted earlier, the order of the trial Court was maintained by the First Appellate Court.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Assistant Advocate General I am not inclined to interfere in the revisional jurisdiction. Following being the reasons:--
(i) The counsel for the petitioner has failed to bring home that the learned First Appellate Court by way of the impugned order exercised a jurisdiction which was not vested in it by law or had failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or had acted in exercise of his jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.
(ii) According to the concurrent findings recorded by the forums below during consolidation proceedings a particular piece of land was reserved as Asaish Deh with the consent of the land owners of the village. That being so, the petitioner as successor-in-interest of his grand father cannot be heard in complaint against the creation of Asaish Deh.
(iii) The piece of land in question having been mutated some 22 years earlier to the filing of the suit, the plaint was clearly barred by limitation. All the more so, when not a single assertion was made in the plaint to explain the same. Mere statement in para-5 of the plaint that on going through the revenue record the plaintiff came to know of the impugned mutation only one month before the filing of the suit was too fabulous to be believed. And,
(iv) The land in issue reserved as Asaish Deh being earmarked for construction of a public school by the Education Department from public funds, there was no question of grant of injunction against the proposed project. The findings of the trial Court as well as the learned First Appellate Court being well within law, the procedure and in the interest of public, no possible exception to the same can be taken in revisional jurisdiction.
5. Petition dismissed-in-lim ine.