' SHOAIB SAEED, J.---This first appeal against order is directed against the impugned order dated 20-6-2013 wherein application of the appellants for temporary injunction was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that appellants filed a suit for specific performance of contract dated 23-1-1993 regarding land measuring 287- Kanals 02-Marlas comprising in Khewat Nos.37, 58, 25, 33, 34, 36 situated at Bhattianwala, Tehsil Ferozwala, District Sheikhupura which was purchased by the appellants at the rate of Rs,1,12,000 per acre and they paid an amount of Rs,35,19,400 as earnest money to the respondents, thereafter respondents refused to execute sale deed in their favour, they filed suit for specific performance dated 19-12-2009. Along with the said suit, an application for temporary injunction was also filed.
' Respondents controverted the appellants' claim and alleged that agreement to sell relied upon by the appellants was a forged and fabricated document and respondents neither entered into an agreement to sell nor received any advance payment/earnest money in this regard and possession of the land was with the respondents.
3. It was contended by counsel for the appellants that the agreement to sell was not a forged document. An amount of Rs,35,19,400 was made thereunder to the respondents, they kept postponing the matter on different pretexts, finally they refused to receive the balance consideration price and also to execute the sale deed thereof. The trial Court wrongly dismissed application for temporary injunction though appellants had made out a prima facie case and balance of convenience also lay in their favour.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. The alleged agreement to sell was executed on 23-1-1993. Strangely, the appellants waited for 16-years before filing the suit coupled with application for temporary injunction. Appellants failed to bring on record the original agreement to sell and stated that it was thrice brought in the Court but could not be placed and was lost. The argument does not seem to be plausible. No reasons were assigned for filing the suit at such a belated stage. Photocopy of agreement to sell is stated to be altered. In an application under Order XXXIX, Rule 1, C.P.C. Where temporary injunction is claimed petitioner has to make out a good prima facie case as serious question is to be tried in the suit and in the event of success if the injunction is not granted petitioner will suffer irreparable injury. In case where these conditions are fulfilled injunction can be issued. In the instant matter, appellants failed to meet any of the ingredients for issuance of injunction, the trial Court rightly dismissed their application for grant of temporary injunction. There is no infirmity in the orders dated 20-6-2013.
In view of the above, this first appeal against order being devoid of any force is dismissed in limine.