ORDER CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J.---The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that on 19-5- 2005, the petitioners/ plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration along with permanent injunction in the court of learned Civil Judge, Sarai-Alamgir. The petitioner also submitted an application for the grant of interim injunction. On 3-4-2006, the learned trial court after Hearing the parties, perusal of record and on the basis of report of local commission, granted interim stay order directing the parties to maintain status quo. Respondents Nos.1 and 2 filed appeal before the learned A Additional District Judge, Kharian who vide order dated 22-12-2006 accepted the appeal and vacated the interim stay order granted by the learned trial court to the petitioner/plaintiff, hence this Civil Revision.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that impugned judgment dated 2-12-2006 passed by the learned iditiomal District Judge, Kharian is contrary to law and suffers from material illegalities because findings recorded by the learned Additional District Judge, Kharian is based on misreading and non-reading of evidence. He further contends that at appellate Stage, learned Additional District Judge, Kharian was not required to appoint local commission. The learned Additional Judge, Kharian arbitrarily appointed the local commission, who had also travelled beyond the reference.
The learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that on 22-12-2006, the local commission submitted his report which was against law, arbitrary and against the High Court's rules. The learned Appellate Court did not invite the objections on the report which was mandatory requirement of law. However, learned Additional District Judge, Kharian accepted the appeal and vacated the interim injunction granted by the learned trial court relying on the report of local commission, therefore, Civil Revision be allowed, impugned judgment dated 22-12-2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kharain be set aside and the interim injunction as Rayed be granted.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the Civil Revision. He contends that Civil Revision is not maintainable because the local commission was appointed with the consent of both the parties and the report of local commission amounts to a consent decree. Learned counsel further contends that report of local commission was submitted on 20-12-2006 and the appeal was decided on 22-12-2006. It was the duty of petitioner to file objections against the report of local commission if they had desired so but they did not opt to file objection petition which again amounts that they did not dispute the report of local commission.
Therefore, Civil Revision be dismissed and the impugned judgment be maintained.
4. Arguments heard, record perused.
5. The suit was filed on 19-5-2005, the learned trial court granted ad interim injunction on 3-4-2006 which order was set aside by the appellate court on 22-12-2006. The instant Civil Revision was filed in 2006 and since then, it is pending. Period of more than three years has lapsed. It will not be appropriate at this time to interfere in the complicated matter of possession in the absence of solid evidence, therefore, this Civil Revision is disposed of with the direction- to the learned trial Court to decide the main suit between the parties expeditiously within the period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Till the final decision of suit, status quo be maintained by all the parties in respect of possession. Parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 17-4-2010..