' IQBAL HAMEED UR REHMAN, J.---Through this revision, the petitioner prays that the order, dated 20- 7-2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge Ist Class, Okara, and the judgment, dated 2-9-2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Okara, may be set aside..
2. Brief facts giving rise to this civil revision are that the petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance against the respondent/defendant regarding the property measuring one kanal, situated at Kot Sultan Dakhly Moza Barunpur, Tehsil and District Okara. Along with the suit, the petitioner also filed an application for temporary injunction. The learned Civil Judge Ist Class, Okara, dismissed the application for temporary injunction vide order, dated 20-7-2009. Against the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal and the same was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Okara, vide judgment, dated .2-9-2009. Being aggrieved with the said judgment, the petitioner has filed this civil revision.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser of the suit-land vide agreement, dated 25-7-2008 and paid the huge amount as earnest money and only Rs,2,50,000 remains to be paid, as such, he has a good case and if the suit property is alienated to others, he will suffer irreparable loss; that the petitioner is in possession of the suit land from the date of agreement i.e, 25-7-2008 and the respondent/defendant wants to sell the same in violation of the terms and conditions of the said agreement, therefore, the respondent be restrained from alienating the suit property to anyone else; that refusal of granting interim relief to the petitioner solely is based upon the private report of the Finger Print Expert submitted by the respondent and the learned trial Court should have verified the same by ordering its examination from an independent Expert/Forensic Science Laboratory and in view of the same, privately received finger prints report of the expert has no value in the eyes of law and that the impugned orders of both the Courts below are bad in law and against the facts of the case, as such, the same are liable to be set aside.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent, while supporting the written statement filed by the respondent, has stated that neither the respondent/defendant has made any agreement to sell with the petitioner/plaintiff nor she has received Rs,8,00,000 written on the back of the agreement to sell, dated 25-7-2008 and that the petitioner/plaintiff could not prove the thumb impression of the respondent/defendant on the said agreement as the same was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory and it was in the opinion of the Finger Print Bureau that the thumb- impression on the said agreement was not of the respondent/defendant. It is further stated that the respondent/defendant has denied the execution of the power of attorney in favour of her husband Ghulam Farid regarding the selling of the suit property, as such, Ghulam Farid, husband of the respondent/defendant has no legal status to make the said agreement, dated 25-7-2008 with the petitioner/respondent regarding the suit property. It is also stated that the respondent/defendant is in possession of the suit property and no local commission was appointed regarding the possession.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the impugned orders as well as other material available on the record.
6. Perusal of the Iqrarnama, dated 25-7-2008 shows that the petitioner/plaintiff entered into an agreement to sell with the respondent/ defendant regarding the suit property and the respondent/defendant received Rs,8,00,000 from the petitioner/defendant and only Rs,2,50,000 remains to be paid. The same also bears the thumb impression of the respondent/defendant. The petitioner is in possession of the suit property and huge amount has been paid to the respondent/ defendant and in view of the same, the petitioner has a good case for permanent injunction and balance of convenience also lies in his favour. If the stay is not granted to the petitioner/plaintiff, he shall suffer irreparable loss. The suit of the petitioner/plaintiff is pending and the evidence is to be recorded and without recording evidence, it cannot be determined as to whether the Iqrarnama, dated 25-7-2008 is genuine or not.
7. In view of the above circumstances, this civil revision is accepted and the impugned orders are set aside. Resultantly, the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for temporary injunction is accepted and the stay is granted to the petitioner/plaintiff regarding the suit property till the final disposal of the suit.