IJAZ UL AHSAN, J.--The petitioner filed a suit for possession through pre-emption. The suit was accompanied by an application for temporary injunction. Both the suit and the application were contested. After hearing, the learned Civil Court dismissed the application. The appeal filed by the petitioner also failed. Hence this petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit property has three fish farms, one poultry farm and a Dera. Respondents who are purchasers of the land are dismantling one of the fish farms. This according to him is an attempt to change the nature of the property and to diminish its value. He, therefore, seeks a restraining order against dismantling of the fish farm or other constructed areas of the suit property. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon PLD 1980 Lah. 382 and PLD 2007 Lah.
377. He contends that where a suit for pre-emption has been filed with regard to any property having a superstructure which is a part of the sale, and the vendee intends to demolish the superstructure in order to avoid the right of the pre-emptor, the Court may, on the basis of facts of the case grant an injunction. He argues that a change in the nature and character of suit property is bound to cause inconvenience to the petitioner in addition to irreparable loss and injury.
Therefore, he was entitled to injunctive relief
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also gone through the case-law cited by him. The respondents are admittedly bona fide purchasers. They cannot at this stage be deprived of use of the property for their benefit in a manner that they consider appropriate. There is nothing on record to show that they are demolishing parts of the suit property for the purposes of diminishing its value or changing its character. The petitioner is at best a claimant of a right of pre- emption and has yet to prove his case. The claimant cannot in my opinion be allowed to hold a bona fide purchaser hostage by reason of his claim and deprive such purchaser of the lawful right to use and enjoy the property purchased by him. In PLD 2007 Lah. 377 cited by the petitioner, this Court declined to grant a restraining order by holding that temporary injunctions in pre-emption suits should not be lightly granted because the owner of the property may not be brought under restraint to use his property which may tantamount to breach of his fundamental rights as enshrined in Article 23 of the Constitution.
4. There is nothing, on record to establish that any superstructure is being demolished with the intent to defeat the right of the pre-emptor. Therefore, the aforesaid judgment even otherwise is inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of this case and is clearly distinguishable.
5. Likewise PLD 1980 Lah. 382 relates to a situation where the nature of the suit property was being changed by way of undertaking construction, tending to change the very nature and character of the. Suit land. This is clearly not the case in the instant matter. Alleged, dismantling of one of the three fish farms does not, in my opinion constitute changing the nature and character of the suit- land. Further nothing has been placed on record that may indicate that the fish farms constitute any considerable portion of the price of the suit land and its alleged dismantling is intended to and will indeed diminish its value.
6. Both the learned Lower Courts have found that three ingredients of injunction namely, prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss tilt in favour of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has tried, unsuccessfully, to show failure to exercise jurisdictional on the part of the learned Lower Courts to and demonstrate that they have acted illegally and with material irregularity.
7. On examination of the material before me, I do not find any failure to exercise jurisdictional illegality or material irregularity on the part of both Courts below. Their findings are consistent, well reasoned and supported by the record. Consequently, the petition fails and dismissed.