' MUHAMMAD FARRUKH IRFAN KHAN, J.---Mst. Zubaida Bibi, the petitioner through this civil revision under section 115, C.P.C. Impugns the order dated 15-4-2013 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Ferozwala, whereby the said court while allowing the appeal of respondents against the order of learned Civil Judge, Ferozwala dated 3-12-2012 accepted their application under Order XXXXI Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. In a suit for specific performance.
2. Facts of the case in brief are that the respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance on the basis of agreement to sell dated 12-2-2009 regarding the agricultural land fully described in para No,1 of the plaint. It was alleged in the plaint that the defendant/petitioner entered into agreement to sell regarding the disputed land with the respondents/plaintiffs in consideration of Rs,20,00,000. Petitioner/ defendant received Rs,5,00,000 as earnest money in the presence of witnesses and the parties and witnesses affixed their thumb impressions/signatures on the agreement to sell. It was settled between the parties that out of remaining consideration amount of Rs,15,00,000 ten lac rupees will be paid after decision of partition application before the Tehsildar concerned and possession will be handed over to the respondents/plaintiffs. On 24-12-2010 petitioner/defendant received Rs,10,00,000 in the presence of witnesses and handed over the possession of the suit property to the respondents/plaintiffs. According to the terms and conditions of the agreement to sell it was settled that after receiving remaining consideration amount of Rs,5,00,000 within four months sale-deed will be executed and registered in favour of therespondents/plaintiffs. On 22-4-2011 respondents/plaintiffs contacted the petitioner/defendant and asked her to receive the remaining consideration amount and transfer the disputed property in their names, but she refused to honour her commitment. Hence, suit for specific performance of.Contract was filed. The said suit was also accompanied with an is application for temporary injunction.
3. Petitfoner/Defendant contested the suit as well as application for temporary injunction through filing written statement and written reply raising certain preliminary objections.
4. Learned trial Court after hearing the parties proceeded to dismiss the application of the respondents/plaintiffs for grant of temporary injunction vide order dated 3-12-2012. Being aggrieved the respondents/plaintiffs preferred an appeal before the learned appellate court, who vide impugned order dated 15-4-2013 accepted the same. Hence, this revision petition.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned lower appellate court committed material illegality and irregularity while passing impugned order; that, the -petitioner totally denied execution of agreement to sell and receipt of token money, therefore, learned lower appellate court was not justified in granting application of temporary injunction on the basis, of said document; thatingredients for grant of temporary injunction i.e, prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss did not exist in favour of the respondents; that the learned trial Court had passed a well-reasoned order which has illegally been set aside by the learned lower appellate court by misinterpreting Order XXXXJ, Rule 1 and 2, C.P.C.
6. Arguments heard. Record perused.
7.
8. The claim of the respondents/ plaintiffs is based on a written agreement to sell which though was denied by the petitioner/defendant yet prima facie her thumb impressions along with number of identity card are available on the said agreement as well as in the register of stamp vendor which on a tentative assessm ent favours the stance of the 'Is' former. Moreover, learned lower appellate '-1' court while appreciating the material placed before her observed that according to the Khasra Gardwari for the Year 2012 the 'respondents/plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property and the learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to controvert this observation of the learned lower {{PAGE BLUR}} appellate court placing on record fresh Gardwari. The copies O'f Khasra Ir.`Girdawaries annexed with this revision "VrTeiltihn pertain 'le 'they ear 2009-2010 riq Which prima facie supports the version of the respondents/plainIiffs that on 4-12-2010 1V WI after receiving further considerat* n amount bs - of Rs,10,00,000 the possession was handed over to theft': lh the preSence of written ate= to sell coupled With ,deliYgry of &11 possession, the respondents/ plaintiffs have a'Prima facie good arguable case in their favour.
The respondents/plaintiffs shall suffer irreparable loss 41 case of nonvms 41, issuance of temporary injunction as such balance of convenience also leans in their favour. Tri case reported as Mian Muhammad' Latif v. Province of West 1 Pakistan through the Deputy Commissioner, Khairpur and another (PLD 1970 S.C.180) the. Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has ruled that, "plaintiff has only to make out a good prima facie case and show that irreparable injury would ensue if injunction not granted". All the above conditions for grant of temporary injunction co-exist in favour of the respondents, therefore, the A learned lower appellate court by relying on the attending circumstances of the case 2013] Muhammad Farooq v. Abdul Waheed Siddiqui