' ATIR MAHMOOD, J.---Briefly facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioners, filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they are the owners of the property, fully explained in the head-note of the plaint and the defendants Nos. 8 to 13 (present respondents Nos. 8 to 13) have no right or concern with the same; further sought a declaration that the order dated 7-1-2011 passed by defendant No,2/respondent No,2, orders dated 9-9-2010 and 21-10-2010 passed by defendant No,3/ respondent No, 3 regarding review of Mutation No, 1414 attested on 1-3-1968 and subsequent orders of Mutations Nos. 21079 and 21080 attested on 14-9-2010 passed by defendant No,5/respondent No,5 are illegal, ,unlawful and inoperative against the rights of the plaintiffs; further sought the possession and permanent injunction against the defendants/respondents restraining them from alienating the suit property to anybody else. Along with the plaint, the petitioners filed an application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. For temporary injunction.
2. The learned trial Court below accepted the application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. Of the plaintiffs vide order dated 16-4-2011 which was assailed in appeal by the present respondents Nos.8 to 11 before the lower appellate Court. The appeal of the defendants Nos. 8 to 11/respondents Nos. 8 to 11 was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, Rahim Yar Khan vide judgment dated 19-9-2012 whereby the application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. Of the plaintiffs/petitioners was dismissed. Being aggrieved of the judgment of the lower appellate Court, the petitioners filed the instant writ petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned Additional District Judge has unlawfully dismissed the application of the petitioners for grant of temporary injunction; that the order of the learned trial court is based on cogent reasons; that the balance of convenience lies with the petitioners; that the petitioners are owners of the property; that if the temporary injunction is not granted to the petitioners they will suffer irreparable loss. He prays that this civil revision be allowed, the impugned order be set-aside and the order of the learned trial Court be restored.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents Nos. 8 to 15 as well as learned A.A.-G. While supporting the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge have submitted that the respondents are owners in possession of the property vide registered sale deed No,518 dated 21-2-1959, registered sale deed No,55 dated 23-2-1960 and registered sale deed No, 685 dated 12-12-1959 and exchange deed No, 72 dated 3-5-1991 on the basis of which the mutations under challenged were attested by the competent authorities; that the petitioners have no right over the suit property, therefore, this civil revision be dismissed.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the available record.
6. It is evident from the record that the petitioneRs, while filing the suit, have not challenged or sought the cancellation of the sale deeds on the basis of which the impugned mutations were attested; possession of the suit property is .Admittedly with the respondents. The petitioners have not been able to point out any illegality or jurisdictional error committed by the learned Additional 'District Judge while passing the impugned judgment. I am guided by the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case cited as Mst. Feroz Begum v. Mst. Amtul Farooq (1976 SCM R 291), which reads as under:-- "Having perused the impugned judgment, we find that the District Judge had brushed aside a registered sale deed in respect of the disputed house placed on the record by the respondent purporting to show that her late husband had transferred the house in her favour. The view taken by the High Court was that this document could not be lost sight of merely on account of the challenge to its genuineness as at any rate the finding required to be given at this stage was to be merely tentative in nature and the document was good enough to justify the inference of a prime facie case in favour of the respondent. The petition is completely devoid of force and is hereby dismissed".
7. In the present case the petitioners have not even challenged the registered sale deeds in favour of the respondents and merely sought the cancellation of the mutations in favour of the respondents Nos. 8 to 13. In view of the above discussion, the petitioners have not been able to establish any of the ingredients for the grant of temporary injunction i,e, prima facie case, irreparable loss and balance of in-convenience in their favour. This petition being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed.