' MUNIR AHMED CHAUDHARY, J.---This revision petition has been filed against the judgment and order of Additional District Judge Kotli dated 20-3-2012, through which an appeal filed by the present petitioners was dismissed and an order of Civil Judge Court No,III Kotli regarding cancellation of interim injunction was upheld.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the present revision petition are that the present petitioners/plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration against the present respondents in the court of Civil Judge Court No,III Kotli, stating therein that the land bearing survey No,1358/1289 is owned by the owners including the petitioners and the said land has not been partitioned yet. The petitioners are in possession of the land measuring 1 Kanal bearing survey No, 1358/1289 min. The respondents were never in possession of the said land. Respondents Nos.1 to 12 purchased the land measuring 14 Marlas out of the said survey number with connivance of respondent No,13 Kamal Khan secretly against a price of Rs, 20,000. A sale-deed was executed secretly on 7-3-1998, which was against the facts and provisions of law. It was prayed to issue a decree of declaration along with cancellation of the said sale-deed.
3. The petitioners/plaintiffs got issued interim injunction through a separate application against the present respondents. The respondents submitted objections. After hearing the parties, the learned Civil Judge vacated the interim injunction. The petitioners preferred an appeal before District Judge, Kotli, which was made over to the learned Additional District Judge, Kotli for disposal under law. The learned Additional District Judge, Kotli dismissed the appeal after hearing the parties.
Hence, the instant revision petition.
4. Arguments were advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. Ch. Muhammad Ilyas Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners/plaintiffs submitted an application for spot inspection but the same remained unattended and the learned Civil Judge passed an order on application for interim relief without disposal of the said application. The courts below relied upon an undertaking, which was submitted by the respondents. The suit filed by the petitioners fulfills the requirements for issuance of interim injunction. The learned counsel requested to accept the revision petition and to issue interim injunction in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents setting aside the judgment and order of the subordinate courts.
5. While controverting the learned counsel for the petitioners, Raja Javaid Akhtar Khan Advocate, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the respondents have submitted an undertaking that they will not claim compensation of any structure, if the decision is made against them. The suit of the petitioners does not fulfil the requirements for issuance of interim injunction.
The learned counsel requested to dismiss the revision petition.
6. After hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the record minutely. The record reveals that the respondents/defendants are in possession of the disputed land. The petitioners have appended a copy of record of rights pertaining to the years 2003-2004 and the respondents have appended the same copy of record of rights along with copies of periodical record and mutation, which reflect that the respondents are in possession of the disputed land. It is an admitted fact that the disputed land has not been partitioned yet in accordance with the provisions of law. The respondents are co-sharers of the disputed land and they have submitted an undertaking as well that they will not claim the cost of any improvement if the decision is made against them. As far the application for spot inspection is concerned, it is a sweet will of the concerned court to inspect the disputed land. No party can claim for spot inspection as a right.
Having in view the above-mentioned circumstances, the findings recorded by both the subordinate courts are based on sound and cogent reasons, which need no indulgence by this Court. The instant revision petition stands dismissed with no order as to the costs.