' QAISER RASHID KHAN, J.---Through this revision petition, petitioners have impugned the judgment/order dated 9-7-2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-VI, D.I.Khan vide which the appeal of the respondent was accepted and the judgment/order passed by learned Civil Judge-XV, D.I.Khan dated 18-4-2011 vide which the temporary injunction application of the petitioner was accepted, was set aside.
2. The precise facts of the instant revision petition are that petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration-cum-perpetual injunction and specific performance of agreement against the respondent/defendant to the effect that agreement for the purpose of plot, situated at Abdul Majeed Town. Basti Dirkhana Wali Dinpur Road D.I.Khan, was executed in between the parties on 4- 12-2004 and the petitioner besides paying the advance money also paid its monthly instalments but despite that, the respondent refused to execute registered instrument in favour of the petitioner. The suit of petitioner was also accompanied by an application for grant of temporary injunction praying therein that the respondent be restrained from interfering' and further alienating the disputed plot. The respondent contested the suit and the said application by filing his written statement and replication. The learned trial Court after hearing arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, accepted the application for grant of temporary injunction of the petitioner vide judgment/ order dated 18-4-2011.
3. Respondent aggrieved from the judgment/order of the learned trial Court, filed an appeal before the learned appellate Court, who after hearing arguments of both the sides accepted the appeal of respondent vide judgment/order dated 9-7-2011 by setting aside the judgment/order of the learned trial Court, hence the instant revision petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the learned appellate Court has accepted the appeal of respondent in total disregard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also ignored the requisites for the grant of interim relief by way of temporary injunction i.e. Prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. He submitted that the petitioner has purchased the plot in question vide agreement dated 4-12-2004 through which the total price of the plot was fixed as Rs.82,500 out of which Rs.10,000 was paid as advance money and has been in possession of the same after the said purchase. He further contended that the petitioner has regularly paid the due instalments and never defaulted in any such payment and to date has paid a total amount of Rs.82,500 to the respondent/defendant; that the petitioner in good faith never' demanded the monthly payment receipts from the respondent and that grant of temporary injunction was thus in the fitness of circumstances and in the absence of the grant of interim relief, the respondent is all set to transfer/alienate the suit plot to somebody else. He lastly argued that the petitioner was condemned unheard as no opportunity of hearing was afforded to her to put across her view-point before the learned appellate Court.
5. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the request of the petitioner for the grant of temporary injunction. He argued that that the suit of the petitioner is baseless and incorrect as after the execution of the agreement and payment of the token advance money, no payment worth the name was ever made to the respondent and thus she cannot claim the ownership over the plot in question. He lastly argued that the instant revision petition is hopelessly time-barred.
6. Arguments heard and the available record perused.
7. At the very outset, it was observed that the present petition was filed with a decree of indifference without furnishing the entire record of the trial Court in sheer disregard to the explicit language of section 115, C.P.C. Even the agreement dated 4-12-2004 and the written statement of the respondent/defendant have not been placed on file. The plea of the petitioner is that she became the owner in possession of the plot in question through the execution of agreement dated 4-12-2004 on the payment of advance money and the balance through monthly instalments.
Strangely enough, two different figures have been shown as advance payments in the heading and in the body of the plaint. Anyway, she avers that subsequently she paid off the balance amount of Rs.72,500 through monthly instalments and she is thus the owner in possession of the plot. Barring the agreement (not available on file) she has not furnished the monthly payment receipts with her main suit and that too, in a situation where the respondent has outrightly denied having received the payment of Rs.72,500 from the lady. Little wonder that still the petitioner is pressing hard for the grant of interim relief, when the first condition precedent i.e. Prima facie good case is missing in her case. The other two ingredients i.e. Balance of convenience and irreparable loss are the direct consequence of the first one. Likewise, the revision petition is hopelessly time- barred.
8. In the light of above stated position, I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the judgment/order passed by learned lower appellate court. Resultantly, the instant revision petition being bereft of merits, is dismissed with no order as to costs.