1. ' In this application the applicants who are landlords of buildings in Khada had prayed for injunction against the respondent restraining him from raising construction in the shop let-out. The Civil Judge inspected the site and found that 5 ft. Deep and 8 ft. Long and 4i ft. Wide water tank had been constructed by the respondent in the shop and only the upper slab was to be put in. He also found 2 pits. The matter was decided on the basis of affidavits. The plaintiff had alleged that he apprehends danger to the building but no evidence in this respect was led. The Civil Judge refused the injunction on the ground that if any damage was caused then same could be compensated.
2. ' The appellant filed an appeal but the same was dismissed on the ground that the work had already been completed, therefore, no injunction can be granted. The District Judge, was also of the view that the discretion of the lower Court should not be interfered with. He further took the view that there was no agreement executed between the parties for restraining the defendant to carry on the business of Hammam and the digging of the water tank had been completed.
3. Mr. Niazi contends that the construction of the tank and Hamm am would damage the building.
4. However, there is no proof produced by the applicant/plaintiff in spite of that assertion and, therefore, there is no prima facie case made out at this stage for any damage to the building.
5. Moreover the construction has already been completed and, therefore, injunction to restrain the respondent from construction cannot be granted at this stage, unless, the plaintiff/applicant amends his plaint and seeks mandatory injunction for demolition of the works. Mr. Niazy has relied upon 1976 SCMR 39 where the Supreme Court had upheld the order of the Lahore High Court. In that case before the Supreme Court, the trial Judge had refused to issue interlocutory injunction against raising of wall by defendants who had claimed a right to raise the wall as the wall had existed for the last 40 years but had been demolished on account of floods an year earlier. The District Judge, however, reversed the order and issued interim injunction restraining the construction of the wall which was upheld by the High Court. This Supreme Court case is not applicable to this case as in that case the wall was still to be constructed, therefore, the Supreme Court in those circumstances held that the construction of wall would have involved wastage of expense in constructing the wall which ultimately will have to be demolished and conversely no such result would ensue if the petitioner in that case was restrained from raising the wall. In the pre sent case before me the relevant works have already been completed. I am therefore, those observations of the Supreme Court would not be applicable in this case. I-therefore, do not find any substance in this application and dismiss the same. However, these observations that I have made are only for the purpose of the interim injunction and the same will be kept out of consideration by the trial Court when it decides the suit on merit after hearing the evidence of the parties.
6. ' In view of the importance of the question of damage involved in the case I would direct the concerned Civil Judge to expeditiously dispose of the suit in a manner that it will be decided in this year.