CH. MUHAMMAD MASOOD JAHANGIR, J.---Verily, respondents Nos.4 to 7 are the lawful owners of disputed property, but respondent No.8 while posing himself to be their General Attorney transferred it to the petitioners through oral sale mutation No.649 dated 31.08.2007. Learning about it, the same was unsuccessfully assailed by respondents Nos.4 to 7 through an appeal before respondent No.3, however the mutation was cancelled by respondent No.2 when second appeal of said respondents was allowed. The petitioners remained bootless before the Board of Revenue when their RoR as well as Review Petition was dismissed on 18.01.2011 and 19.07.2012 respectively, who lastly approached the learned Civil Court through the suit in hand for the restoration of their mutation and setting aside of the orders passed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2. The suit was also accompanied by an application under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and same has been declined by the Courts below through the impugned order and judgment, which are now being attacked through the instant Civil Revision.
2. The bone of contention among the parties is the alleged General Power of Attorney purportedly presented by respondent No.8 for the transfer of the subject property before the Revenue Officer, which as per the stance of respondents Nos.4 to 7 was a forged, fictitious and nonexistent document, whereas the petitioners claimed it to be otherwise. The available record affirms that respondent No.2 during adjudication of second appeal summoned report from the concerned Sub-Registrar by whom it was attested, whose Office endorsed that on the given number and date the disputed General Power of Attorney was not attested in favour of respondent No.8, rather on this number and date a Special Power of Attorney was attested in favour of Mst. Masooda Jabeen by her husband Abdul Rehman Malik. This exercise was again confirmed by the Member, Board of Revenue, who during the proceedings of RoR also procured another certificate dated 21.08.2007 from the said Office. Today during the course of arguments, the learned counsel for respondents Nos.4 to 7 presented copy of Special Power of Attorney and its study reveals that the same was attested on 07.04.1999 at serial No. 510 Book No. 4 Vol. No. 62 in favour of a lady by her husband, but the impugned mutation was also found to be sanctioned on the basis of a copy of General Power of Attorney attested on that date at the same serial number. The probe of the revenue hierarchy has left no room that the purported General Power of Attorney on the authority whereof the A mutation impugned under the suit had been attested was a fake document. Moreover, Mr. Charagh Muhammad Maan, Advocate, learned counsel for respondents Nos. 4 to 7 also offered that if the disputed General Power of Attorney in original or its attested copy is brought on the record by the petitioners, then this revision and application for grant of temporary injunctive order may be allowed. In response, Syed Athar Hassan Bukhari, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners has found himself speechless and handicapped, who also showed his inability to accept the offer of learned counsel for respondents Nos. 4 to 7 through bringing on record the original General Power of Attorney or even attested copy thereof. The petitioners so far could not bring on record the attested copy or the original instrument on any of the lis files conducted by the revenue forums, learned Civil, District as well as this Court to establish its execution, attestation, genuineness and existence.
3. Vehemence of Mr. Athar that the petitioners are in possession of the disputed property, therefore, they have a case for the issuance of temporary injunction, suffice it to say that under the relevant provision of law, there are three essential ingredients for grant of temporary injunction, which must co-exist in favour of quester i.e. prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. The Court is required to weigh these elements while considering whether the seeker has approached the Court with unclean hands and whether grant of injunction shall result into an undue advantage being awarded would perpetuate injustice. In case of answer of any of the elements in affirmative, such a discretionary relief cannot be accorded. In the case in hand, it can safely be concluded that petitioners had not approached the Court with clean hands, their case is hinging on a forged and fictitious document and a strict action against the wrongdoers has to be initiated, if not pressed so far because sparing the criminals will encourage the others to usurp the properties of the lawful owners by means of fake instruments. Mere possession cannot be made basis to equip them with the injunction for an indefinite period. Reliance can be placed upon judgment of the apex Court reported as Muhammad Ali v. Mahnga Khan (2004 SCM R 1111).
4. The accumulative effect of the above discussion is that the petitioners failed to make out a prima facie case, whereas the other two factors also do not tilt in their favour and the Courts were quite perfect in dismissing their application. This Civil Revision being meritless is dismissed.