ALI BAQAR NAJAFI, J. - This civil revision is directed against order dated 36.05.2012 recorded by the learned Addl. District Judge, Rawalpindi, why the appeal of the petitioners against the dismissal of application for temporary injunction was dismissed.
2. Briefly the facts giving rise to the filing of the present revision petition are that the petitioners have filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents asserting therein that they are owners in possession of land falling in Khewat No. 128 Khatooni No. 479, Khasra No. 38 measuring I Kenai, 7 Marlas, Khasra -No. 39 measuring 2 Kanals, 6 Merles total measuring 3 Kanals, 13 Marlas situated in Revenue Estate of Lohsar, Tehsil and District Rawalpindi which was inherited from their forefathers. Further, averred that father of respondents Nos. 2 to 5 remained as tenant-at-will under the petitioners for a long time whose tenancy was terminated four years prior to filing of the suit. The respondents/defendants Nos. 2, 3 & 5 have filed their written statement and controverted the contents of the plaint.
3. Alongwith the suit an application under Order XXXIX, Rules I & 2, C.P.C. Was also filed which was contested by the respondents-defendants by filing their written reply. The learned Civil Judge after hearing the parties passed the above-said order, which was challenged in appeal and the same was dismissed, hence this revision petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the report of the local commission is incorrect; the petitioners inherited the land from their forefathers; the report even if relied upon, makes it a prima facie case of the petitioner and prays for the acceptance of the civil revision.
5. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondents opposes the petition on the ground that the two Courts below have consistently rejected the stay application; that the report of the local commission is factually correct, hence prays for its dismissal.
6. Have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. An application for grant of stay is required to be decided on the following principles i.e. (1) the petitioners have made out a prima facie case (ii) balance of convenience leans towards the petitioners (iii) and if the stay is not granted they would suffer an irreparable loss. Admittedly, the local commission was appointed the request of the petitioners, who visited the spot in presence of the parties and found the land in possession of the respondent No. 1, having been occupied by constructing walls, though no construction was raised inside. The entitlement in the ownership is yet to be determined by the Civil Court. At this stage, the report of the local commission regarding Khasra Nos. 38 & 39 wilt help disposing of this civil revision. Resultantly, I dispose of this civil revision directing the parties to maintain a status quo with regard to the possession over their respective pieces of land, with a further direction to the Civil Court to decide the case expeditiously, preferably within a period of 6 months. . .