MUHAMMAD ALAM, J.---We have heard arguments of the counsel for parties on this petition filed with appeal (CFA No,64/2014). The petition is directed seeking the following remedy:-- "it is therefore humbly prayed that by accepting this application the execution of impugned order dated 09-12-2014 may graciously be stayed/suspended till the final disposal of above titled appeal to meet the ends of justice.
2. Feeling aggrieved from award dated 27-12-2013, respondents/petitioners filed reference before the District Collector, who referred the same to the Referee Court through his order dated 24-03- 2014. On 09-12-2014, the learned Referee Court passed impugned order directing petitioners for deposit of rupees 5 crore in the Referee Court. Feeling aggrieved from the same, petitioners filed appeal (C.F.A. No,64/2014) and also filed this petition seeking the above referred remedy. Through this order, we are deciding the petition (C.M. No,357/14).
3. We have heard the counsel for parties and have gone through the file. Learned counsel for petitioners relied on case law referred in:--
1. 1994 CLC page 987 Lahore
2. PLD 1967 page 191 Peshawar ' Learned counsel for respondents relied on case law reported in:--
1. YLR 2010 page 330 ' We have gone through the case law submitted by the parties. The rule laid down in the case law cited by learned counsel for petitioners has no relevancy with the circumstances of the case in hand while the case law presented by the respondents has close resemblance with the circumstances of the case in hand.
4. We have thoughtfully considered arguments of the learned counsel for parties in favour of grant of temporary injunction and against the grant of the same. In our opinion, petitioners were bound to establish prima facie cage coupled with balance of inconvenience and irreparable loss in case the petition is not granted. The injunction sought through this petition is quite a novel and suspension of the impugned order till disposal of appeal (C.F.A. No,64/2014) is quite strange.
Through the impugned order, learned Referee Court did nothing except the direction of deposit of the subject amount in the trial court. So, the petitioners will not face any irreparable loss or any kind of inconvenience if they deposited the subject amount in the court. Obviously, the Referee Court has not directed for any payment of the subject amount to any person. It is not disputed that the learned trial court has passed impugned order as an administrative order and have not passed any temporary injunction etc. On application of either of the parties. Moreover, we are of the view that the direction for deposit of the subject amount is within the discretion of the learned Referee Court. At this stage .Of the case, interference in the affairs of the learned Referee Court will obviously amount to miscarriage of justice as it is not disputed that the subject amount required to be deposited through impugned order is disputed amount between the parties and the question for determination for Referee Court is the question of title of parties to the said amount as well as the question of apportionment of the same amount between the parties.
5. For the above simple reasons, we hold that the impugned order is correct and the petition for suspension of the same or any kind of staying the operation of the same is based on mala fides on the part of B petitioners. So this petition stands dismissed. Learned Referee Court is free to go ahead with the execution Or operation of the impugned order. We direct office for presenting the appeal (C.F.A. No,64/2014) for an early hearing soon-after the vacations. File of C.M. No,357/14, if any, be consigned to record.