' IQBAL HAMEED-UR-RAHMAN, J.--- Through the instant civil revision the petitioner has called in question the order dated 21-5-2010 passed by the learned Appellate Court on the appeal filed by respondent No,1 against the order dated 1-4-2010 passed by the learned trial court on the application of the petitioner under Order XXXIX, Rule 1, 2, C.P.C. While granting temporary injunction to the petitioner.
2. It is stated that the petitioner's father died on 15-5-1993 who held lease holder rights of the 'and measuring 12-1/2 acres of Stud Farm, situated at Muhammad Nagar, Tehsil Arifwala District Pakpattan. On his demise the petitioner inherited the lease hold rights and at that time the petitioner was minor as is apparent from his date of birth i,e, 5-2-1981. The lease hold rights were duly transferred to the petitioner and respondent No,1 being close relative of the petitioner was appointed as helper of the minor. In December, 1998 respondent No,1 got signed the certain blank papers from the petitioner and started giving the petitioner his share of Batai. In May, 2009 when the petitioner moved an application to respondent No,5 that the petitioner has become major and the lease hold rights of the disputed land be transferred in his favour then the petitioner came to know that in the year 1999 on an application allegedly moved by the petitioner the said lease hold rights were transferred in favour of respondent No,1, in view of which the petitioner filed a suit for declaration with the prayer that the act to transfer the lease hold rights of the disputed land in favour of respondent No,1 of respondents Nos.2 to 5 is illegal and void. In addition to the same the petitioner also sought declaration to the extent that the petitioner be declared to be exclusive lease hold rights of the said property and was entitled to get renewal of the lease hold rights in his name.
3. Along with the suit the petitioner has also filed an application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1, 2, C.P.C.
To issue restraining order of the renewal of the lease hold rights in favour of respondent No,1 and to restrain respondent No,1 from dispossessing the petitioner from the residential Ahata of the disputed property. The said application for grant of temporary injunction had been allowed by the learned trial court vide his order dated 1-4-2010 against which the respondent No,1 preferred an appeal which had been partially accepted with the modification that the Patadari rights in favour of respondent No,1 be renewed whereas maintained the order of the learned trial court by restraining respondents Nos.1 to 5 not to illegally dispossess the petitioner from the residential Ahata. It is contended that the same has been passed illegally which needs to be rectified by this Court in its Constitutional Jurisdiction.
4. Pre-admission notice was issued to the respondents at the preliminary stage of the case.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to substantiate any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. Furthermore, the learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to controvert the fact that the disputed land already stand transferred in the name of respondent No,1 and the possession is also with respondent No,1 while the petitioner is only possessing of residential Ahata.
Keeping the said factum in view, the learned Appellate Court has aptly modified the order of the learned trial court.
6. In the above perspective, the instant petition stands dismissed.