' SYED AKHLAQ AHMAD, J.---This civil revision is directed against the order dated 6-9-2010 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge Pakpattan whereby he accepted the appeal and set-aside the order dated 22-10-2008 passed by the Civil Judge Pakpattan through which the application of Hakeem Abdul Ghaffar/petitioner for the grant of temporary injunction was allowed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 29-6-2007 Hakeem Abdul Ghaffar/petitioner filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the respondents with the contention that on 19-8- 1990 he and his. Father/Hafiz Abdul Majeed purchased in open auction Ahata No,52, A 0-Block Tehsil Arifwala District Pakpattan. Being successful bidder, they deposited 1/5 of the auction price i.e,Rs,27,217 out of total price of Rs,1,36,056 with the respondents. The possession of the said Ahata was also obtained by them where they kept their residence after constructing rooms and boundary wall. The petitioner and his father moved several applications to the respondents to complete the remaining process of auction but they had not taken any steps and later on refused to receive the remaining auction price from them and to execute the sale deed in their favour.
Hence, this suit.
' Along with the suit, the petitioner also moved an application for temporary injunction restraining the respondents from interfering into the possession of the petitioner over the suit property or evicting him from there till the decision of the suit.
3. The respondents/defendants contested the suit as well as application vide their written statement and reply stating that the petitioner/plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit, that the suit is not maintainable under section 56 of the Specific Relief Act, that the court has no jurisdiction to hear the suit under section 36 of the Colony Act, that the petitioner/plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands and filed the suit just to tease the respondents, that the disputed Ahata is owned by the Provincial Government. Under section 10 of the Colony Act, the revenue department has the authority to give proprietary rights of any state property to any one and this court has no jurisdiction in the matter. On facts, averments of the petitioner/plaintiff as set out in his plaint and stay application are not admitted. It is contended that the auction was held on 19-8-1990. However, vide Letter No, 6765-90/ 11095/CSI: dated 4-12-1990, the Board of Revenue Lahore cancelled/ set-aside the said auction. This being so, the petitioner/plaintiff has no locus standi to file this suit. He never came to the department to deposit the remaining auction price. It is, therefore, prayed that the suit as well as application for temporary injunction of the petitioner may be dismissed.
4. After hearing both the learned counsel for the parties, learned Civil Judge vide his order dated 22-10-2008 accepted the application for temporary injunction of the petitioner/plaintiff. Aggrieved with this decision, respondents/defendants filed an appeal which was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge Pakpattan vide his judgment dated 6-9-2010 whereby he vacated the temporary injunction issued by the learned Civil Judge. Now the petitioner/plaintiff has challenged the same before this court through the present civil revision.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff contends that before passing the impugned order dated 4-12-1990, cancelling/setting-aside the auction proceedings dated 19-9-1990, the Board of Revenue Punjab Lahore has not given any notice to the petitioner. Hence the order of cancellation of auction passed by the competent authority is illegal and liable to be set-aside. The petitioner is always ready and willing to deposit the remaining auction price of the suit property and the respondents are under legal obligation to receive the same and to execute the sale deed of the auction property in favour of the petitioner/ plaintiff.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff and have also gone through the documents available on the file.
7. There is no denying the fact that the petitioner purchased the disputed Ahata in open, auction held on 19-8-1990 and also deposited 1/5 of the auction price i.e, Rs,27,217 with the respondents.
Later on, he neither deposited the remaining auction price of the disputed Ahata with the respondents nor agitated the matter for completion of remaining process at any forum till the filing of the present suit on 29-6-2007. It is also a fact that the auction proceedings of the disputed Ahata dated 19-8-1990 had not been approved/confirmed by the competent authority. In fact it was cancelled by the Board of Revenue Punjab Lahore on 4-12-1990 vide letter No, 6765- 90/11095/CSI. Probably due to this reason the petitioner in connivance with the respondents kept mum and silent while enjoying possession of the Ahata for long seventeen years. There was no legal requirement for the competent authority/Board of Revenue Punjab Lahore to give any notice to the petitioner/plaintiff at the time of not approving/ confirming the auction proceedings. In this regard reference can be made to case 'Khan Ashfaque-urRehman Khan v. Member Board of Revenue and others 1986 SCM R 129 wherein it has been held that it was the discretion of the Board of Revenue to confirm or refuse to confirm the auction, without hearing the petitioner.
8. The petitioner/plaintiff is claiming right over the suit property which already stood cancelled from his name for the last about 17 years. Despite lapse of considerable period he himself did not bother to deposit the remaining auction price of the disputed Ahata or agitate his right F before the competent revenue authorities. This being so, the possession of the petitioner/plaintiff over the suit property is totally illegal and that of a trespasser and he cannot claim any legal cover for the same from the court. In these circumstances, the learned lower appellate court rightly held that the petitioner/plaintiff has prima facie no arguable case. Balance of convenience also does not lie in his favour and he will suffer no irreparable loss in case the injunction is refused. There appears no illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order dated 6-9-2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge Pakpattan. The revision petition has no force and the same is dismissed in limine.