' MALIK MANZOOR HUSSAIN, J.---Brief facts giving rise to the instant petition are that the petitioner filed a suit for possession through pre-emption in respect of property transferred through Mutation No,3811 dated 29-11-2012. With the plaint an application was also filed for temporary injunction. The suit was resisted by filing written statement and after receipt of reply and hearing arguments, the learned trial Court dismissed the application for temporary injunction vide order dated 11-4-2013.
Appeal filed was also dismissed through order dated 22-5-2013. Hence, the instant revision petition.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner argued that the petitioner had an arguable case and due to construction carried out by the respondent/vendee, the nature of land would be changed and the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss. He further argued that in pre-emption matters temporary injunction can validly be granted and reliance has been placed on "Muhammad Hussain v.
Muhammad" PLD 2010 SC 803 and "Mst. Nazir Begum and others v. Muhammad Tahir and others"
2005 CLC P-925.
3. Both the learned Courts below have declined the relief of temporary injunction to the petitioner on the ground that the rights of petitioner are protected under Preemption Act and also the respondent has submitted an affidavit that the construction is carried out on his own risk and costs. The judgments referred are clearly distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the present case. Undisputedly, the matters in issue in the referred judgments were further transferred by the vendee/defendant to third party during pendency of suit.
4. In the case in hand the respondent is not going to transfer the land but he is making construction on his own risk and costs with a genuine and valid reason that costs of construction are raising day by day and there is tremendous trend of depreciation in currency. So in case the petitioner succeeds in the case, it would be of no inconvenience to him as the respondent is not going to claim compensation from plaintiff and doing all the same on his own risk. But in case the plaintiff/petitioner's suit failed, he would suffer irreparable loss and the costs of construction or the purpose for which the property was purchased would be out of reach of the respondent. Even otherwise, no improvement can be sought by a vendee, when any construction is made after the filing of suit for pre-emption, as to obvious result of suit. Until and unless a decree has been passed against respondents, he is bona fide purchaser and had every right to utilize the property. To prohibit a lawful owner is also against the constitutional guarantee provided under the fundamental rights. However, in order to safeguard the interest of the petitioner, the learned trial court is directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously, so that rights of the parties may be determined without any further loss of time.
' Resultantly, the revision petition is dismissed in limine.