' IQBAL HAMEED-UR-RAHMAN, J.--- Through this appeal, the appellant prays that the impugned order dated 10-6-2009, whereby the learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Wazirabad, accepted the application of respondent No,1 for the grant of temporary injunction, may be set aside.
2. Brief facts of this appeal are that the appellant and the respondents are real brothers and joint owners in possession of the suit-land measuring 1175 Kanals, 9 Marlas at Mauza Gajargola and Saardarpura Saigol, Tehsil Wazirabad, District Gujranwala. Respondent No,1 filed a suit for specific performance in the Court of the learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Wazirabad, on the basis of an agreement dated A 20-11-2008 along with an application for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. Against the appellant and respondent No,2. The appellant contested the suit and filed written statement as well as reply to the application for temporary injunction denying the execution of the agreement to sell dated 20-11-2008 while respondent No,2 filed a conceding written statement and reply to the application for temporary injunction. Thereafter on hearing the arguments, the learned Civil Judge, Wazirabad, vide his order dated 10-6-2009, accepted the application of respondent No,
1. Hence this appeal.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant, the respondents and Nadim Ahmad are joint owners in possession of the suit-land and that respondent No,1 on the basis of fictitious and fake agreement, had filed a suit for specific performance along with an application for temporary injunction which the appellant duly contested. It is further contended that while allowing the application for the grant of temporary injunction, the learned Civil Judge has not taken into consideration the law laid down in Sahibzada Muhammad Umar Beg v. Sultan Mahmood Khan and another PLD 1970 SC 139 and Puri Terminal Ltd. Karachi v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Communications and Railways, Islamabad and 2 others 2004 SCMR 1692, as the three conditions i.e. Prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss have not been fulfilled while granting application for temporary injunction and the same has only been granted on the basis of the said agreement, as such, the impugned order cannot sustain. It is further stated that the agreement to sell dated 20-11-2008 has been executed on a blank paper and the said agreement is a fake document and the appellant and the brothers are in joint possession, as such, there is no prima facie case in favour of the respondents as well as no irreparable loss or balance of convenience lies in their favour.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No,1 states that the agreement to sell dated 20-11-2008 is a genuine document, in which the appellant duly participated, and the appellant executed the said agreement in his presence and the amount of rupees two crores had been- received and the remaining amount was to be paid at the time of execution of the sale-deed and one of the brothers/vendors, namely, Irshad Ahmad/respondent No,2 had duly admitted the execution of the said agreement and receiving the payment while filing written statement and reply to the application. It is further stated that the appellant Ejaz Ahmad, respondent No,1 Naeem Ahmad, respondent No,2 Irshad Ahmad and Nadeem Ahmad are real brothers and are owners of equal shares in the suit land and respondent No,1 is in possession of the land at Sardarpura Saigal and is ready to make payment of the remaining amount of consideration of Rs,60,00,000 on the execution of the sale-deed. Learned counsel for respondent No,2 has argued that the agreement to sell is a genuine document and was duly executed in presence of the appellant and all the brothers and in view of the same, he has filed conceding written statement before the civil Court in the civil suit, admitting the contents of the plaint of the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the respondents state that since the parties are co-sharers and joint owners of the suit-land, till the decisions of the suit, status quo be maintained.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the impugned order.
6. Admittedly, in the instant suit, the parties are closely related inter se being brothers and the agreement to sell dated 20-11-2008 has been executed in favour of one of the brothers and a perusal of the same also shows that it has been executed in the presence of all the brothers and subsequently, the same has been admitted by respondent No,2 while filing conceding written statement, wherein respondent No,1 is stated to have made a payment of rupees two crores and is admittedly in possession of the suit-land and in this respect, reliance is placed upon Nagai Khasragirdawri. The same has been discussed by the learned Civil Judge in his impugned order while taking into consideration the existence of Iqrarnama which carries the sign of all the parties as well as all witnesses of the transaction. It is quite apparent that the respondents had prima facie case as well as balance of convenience and irreparable loss in their favour.
7. In view of the above circumstances, I find no illegality in the impugned order. Resultantly, this appeal is dismissed.