' MAHMOOD AHMAD BHATTI, J.---This revision petition is directed against the orders dated 28-6- 2012 and 22-9-2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Kamalia and an Additional District Judge, Kamalia, camp at Pir Mahal, District Toba Tek Singh, respectively whereby an application moved by the petitioner for the grant of temporary injunction in a suit for declaration was turned down and an appeal preferred there against was dismissed as well.
2. The petitioner instituted a suit for declaration along with perpetual injunction, contending that he is owner of land measuring 6 Marlas 99 square feet, comprising' Khewat No,1452, Ihata No,1592/93, situated in Upper Colony, Pir Mahal, Tehsil Kamalia, District Toba Tek Singh and that he constructed a house thereon. It is further averred in the plaint that Muhammad Yacjoob, defendant/respondent No,1 is related to him, who, in collusion with defendant/respondent No,2 got prepared a fake, forged and fabricated power of attorney, and got registered it in the office of Sub-Registrar concerned on 11-7-2007. On the strength of the aforesaid power of attorney, a registered sale deed No,410 dated 21-7-2007 followed by a Mutation No,10411 dated 31-8-2014 were executed and attested in favour of Mukhtar Ahmed, defendant/respondent No,2. The aforesaid three documents were challenged on the ground that they were forged and fabricated ones and that no consideration was paid to the plaintiff. A prayer was made that after declaring these documents null and void, he be declared as an absolute owner in possession of the suit property.
3. Along with the plaint, an application was moved by the petitioner/ plaintiff seeking an injunctive order to restrain the respondents from interfering with his possession of the suit property as well as from alienating it any further,
4. It goes without saying that Mukhtar Ahmed filed the written statement, denying the averments made in the plaint. It was maintained by him that he purchased the suit property from Muhammad Yaqoob, attorney of the plaintiff for a valuable consideration. It was also pointed out by him that Muhammad Yaqoob is none other than father-in-law of the plaintiff. He also filed reply to the application for the grant of temporary injunction praying its dismissal.
5. Learned Civil Judge, Kamalia dismissed the application of the petitioner/ plaintiff for the grant of temporary injunction vide order dated 28-6-2012. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal, which was also dismissed by an Additional District Judge, Kamalia vide order dated 22-9-2014.
Hence this revision petition.
6. In support of the revision petition, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that both the courts erred in law. They misapprehended the facts and misconstrued the documents. He further submits that both the impugned orders are arbitrary and capricious. He adds that the petitioner has not only a prima facie case, but the balance of convenience also lies in his favour and that if a restraining order was not passed, he would suffer irreparable loss.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at considerable length and gone through the documents appended to the revision petition with his assistance.
8. I am unable to agree with the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. To begin with, Muhammad Yagoob, respondent No,1 is father-in-law of the petitioner. It is inconceivable that he committed fraud upon the petitioner. The Courts below were at pains to observe that the power of attorney in favour of Muhammad Yaqoob was executed by the petitioner/plaintiff in Saudi Arabia and was duly attested and authenticated by the Pakistan Embassy. After receiving the favour of attorney in Pakistan, the same was presented to the Sub- Registrar concerned, who got it verified through Pakistan Foreign Office, Islamabad. After making verification and thorough investigation, the power of attorney was registered. The registered power of attorney conferred powers on the attorney to make alienation of the suit property. Apparently, Mukhtar Ahmed, defendant/respondent No,2 did not play any role in procuring the power of attorney in question. If the attorney of the plaintiff had validly executed a sale deed in favour of Mukhtar Ahmed, the aforementioned, no blame could be laid at the door of transferee. It was rightly underscored by the Courts below that the plaintiff has not proceeded against Muhammad Yagoob, his father-in-law. He did not get a case registered against him for the alleged commission of fraud. Interestingly enough, the petitioner failed to deposit the process fee to summon Muhammad Yaqoob, with the result that his suit was dismissed to his extent. He did not make any efforts to get this order set aside. There appears to be a method in the madness. At least, this shows that the plaintiff and Muhammad Yaqoob are hands in glove with each other and they have joined forces to get the suit property back/retransferred from Mukhtar Ahmed. In short, the bona fides of the claim of the petitioner are questionable. Apparently, Mukhtar Ahmed is in possession of the suit property, and as things stand, the provisions of section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 afford a protection to him.
9. From the tentative assessm ent of the material placed on record, the petitioner/plaintiff has not been able to make out a prima facie case for the grant of temporary injunction. Neither the balance of convenience lies in his favour nor he is likely to suffer irreparable loss in the event of non-granting of temporary injunction. Furthermore, the doctrine of lis pendens embodied in section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is there to safeguard the rights and interests, if any, of the petitioner.
10. For what has been stated above, both the impugned orders passed in the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction have not been shown to be arbitrary, illegal or suffering from any material irregularity. The petitioner has failed to pinpoint that both the learned Courts below did not exercise the jurisdiction vested in them in accordance with law. Consequently, no case has been made out for the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115, C.P.C.
11. For what has been stated above, this revision petition is devoid of merits and accordingly is dismissed in limine.