1. Through the instant revision petition, petitioner has called in question the order/judgment dated 14.04.2016 passed by learned District Judge/Zila Qazi, Chitral, Camp Court Darosh, whereby appeal filed by respondents/defendants against the order/judgment dated 21.03.2016 passed by learned Civil Judge/Illaqa Qazi Drosh was accepted by setting aside the order of learned trial Court, resultantly, application for the grant of temporary injunction submitted by present petitioner/plaintiff was dismissed.
2. 2.Brief facts of the case are that petitioner/plaintiff filed a declaratory suit against the defendants/respondents in respect of suit property fully described in the "Zamima Alif' annexed with the plaint. Along with the plaint, the petitioner also moved an application for the grant of temporary injunction. The defendants were summoned, who on appearance submitted their written statement, wherein they raised several objections both legal and factual and they also vehemently opposed the application for the grant of temporary injunction by filing replication. The learned trial Court after hearing arguments allowed the said application for the grant of temporary injunction vide order dated 21.3.2016.
3. 3.Feeling aggrieved from the above order of learned trial Court, the present respondents/defendants preferred an appeal before the learned appellate Court, which after hearing was allowed vide impugned order dated 14.4.2016 by the learned District judge Zila Qazi Chitral, Camp Court Darosh, resultantly, impugned order dated 31.03.2016 passed by learned trial Court was set aside and application moved by present petitioner for grant of temporary injunction was dismissed, hence, instant revision petition.
4. 4.Arguments heard and record perused.
5. 5.From perusal of the record, it reveals, that present petitioner/plaintiff Gul Rehman instituted a declaratory suit against the defendants/respondents with regard to suit land detailed whereof fully are mentioned in Zamima Alif annexed with the plaint. The plaintiff alongwith the plaint also moved an application for issuance of temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rulers 1 & 2 of the, C.P.C. to the effect that respondents/defendants be restrained from any sort of interference and change in the suit property. The said application was resisted by the defendants on appearance by filing replication and the learnedtrial Court after hearing allowed the said application vide order dated 21.03.2016. The defendants/respondents assailed the above-mentioned order of learned trial Court in respect of grant of temporary injunction before the Court of learned Zila Qazi Chitral, Camp Court Darosh, who after hearing allowed the appeal vide impugned order dated 14.4.2016 and in consequence thereof, order of learned trial Court dated 21.03.2016 was set aside and application of petitioner/plaintiff was dismissed.
6. 6.A bare look of the record available on file would reveal that petitioner/plaintiff allegedly derived his title in respect of suit property from one Qazi Zain-ul-Abideen, so claims himself as purchased owner through sale transaction vide deed dated 17.03.1994. The plaintiff also asserted that he has constructed house on the suit land and is residing therein, while as per stance of defendants/respondents they claimed ownership of the suit property on the basis of sale-deed allegedly executed in their favour by one Mumtaz Khan son of Fazal Ilahi and the said Mumtaz Khan claims in the same deed that Qazi-Zain-ulAbideen donated the said property to him as support ".311.1" who later on sold it to Defendant No. 2. It would not be out of place to mention here that boundaries given in the both the alleged deeds are different, so, at this stage, when title of both the parties over the suit property is not established, thus, by granting temporary injunction in favour of plaintiff would definitely harm the proprietary rights of defendants/respondents who had started construction of his house where after, it was destroyed in the earthquake.
7. 7.As the parties have yet to produce their respective evidence in support of their respective stance with special reference to deriving title from Qazi-Zain-ul-Abideen, who was admitted owner of the said properties and it would be trashed out after recording evidence as both the properties having different descriptions/boundaries, who are now rival claimants.
8. 8.Even otherwise, the question of an irreparable loss and inconvenience to plaintiff/petitioner could not arise, as the defendants/respondents have given an undertaking before the learned trial Court and learned counsel for respondents before this Court that they will not claim the cost of construction upon improvements made by them over the suit property and the learned appellate Court while considering these legal and factual aspects of the case passed the impugn order in respect of dismissal of application of the petitioner/plaintiff through a well-reasoned order which is maintained, to which no exception could be made out. Thus respondent is allowed to complete construction on his own risk and costs but is restrained to further alienate it to any third person.
9. 9.Thus, in of above observation and discussion, the instant petition being bereft of merits stands dismissed.