' ABDUL SATTAR GORAYA, J.---By means of this revision petition the judgment, dated 5-8-2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Shakargarh has been brought under challenge.
2. Facts in brief are that the petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondent.
It was prayed in the said suit that the respondent may be restrained from interfering into the peaceful possession of the plaintiff on the land which has been sufficiently explained in the head- note of the plaint. It has been pleaded that the property was under mortgage and without clearance of the same the defendant-respondent is not entitled to alienate or dispose of the said property. Defendant-respondent purchased the property through oral Mutation No, 161, dated 20- 6-2005 from Mst. Haleema Bibi. It was further averred that on 12-4-206 the defendant-respondent along with Mst. Perveen Bibi executed an Iqrar-Nama in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner and at the time of said agreement, was in respect of 20 kanals of land. Defendant-respondent was only owner of 8 kanals and the land was under mortgage with Naseeb-Ullah for consideration of Rs,80,000. In accordance with the terms of the agreement it was agreed that the suitor would pay the said amount. The remaining land was in possession of the plaintiff-petitioner. It is stated that an amount of Rs,2,00,000 was paid to the defendant-respondent and Mst. Perveen Bibi took over the possession in part performance of the agreement of sale. Along with the suit there was an application for grant of temporary injunction. On consideration of facts learned trial Court vide order, dated 9-10-2007, granted the application restraining the respondent from interfering into the possession. On appeal having been brought by the respondents, learned Additional District Judge set aside the order, dated 9-10-2007 and accepted the appeal in the terms prayed for.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has been put into possession in part performance of the agreement of sale. An amount of Rs,2,00,000 has been paid. It is further stated that the possession is admitted by both the parties and no case for interference in the appeal was made out and the learned Additional District Judge based his decision on a material foreign to the record.
4. Conversely, learned counsel appearing for the respondent supported the impugned judgment, dated 5-8-2008, fundamentally for the same reasons which weighed with the learned Additional District Judge in passing the impugned order.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The learned Additional District Judge while accepting the appeal has mainly gone by the consideration that terms and conditions in the agreement of (Thekanama) are ambiguous and the said "Dastavez" is also questionable. The proposition of law is too settled to admit any debate that the suitor is only required to establish the prima facie case and not the cent percent case. The dispute is resting on the basis of Iqrar-nama/lease. It is the case of The petitioner that an amount of C Rs,2,00,000 has been paid to the respondent. Each and every aspect of the matter was dealt with in detail by the learned trial Judge and on consideration of facts and circumstances granted the application for grant of injunction in his decision. The order, dated 9-10-2007 passed by the learned trial Judge was neither illegal nor perverse but the appeal has been accepted by the learned Additional District Judge. The validity of the Narnama or its authenticity can only be determined by the learned trial Court. For grant of temporary injunction, the petitioner had been able to make out a prima facie and arguable case. In case of refusing D temporary injunction, the petitioner will suffer an irreparable loss and balance of convenience also leans in favour of the suitor. The reasons advanced by the trial Court have not been adequately met with in the impugned order, dated 5-8- 2008.
6. Consequently, the revision petition is accepted and the impugned order, dated 5-8-2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge is set aside and that of the trial Court, dated 9-10-2007 is restored and maintainable. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case the learned trial Court Judge is directed to accelerate the hearing of the suit and decide the suit before the calendar year goes. No order as to costs.