This petition is directed against the order dated 30th October, 1980 passed by the learned District Judge, Islamabad whereby he dismissed the petitioner's appeal and maintained the order of learned Senior Civil Judge refusing to grant temporary injunction pending decision of the suit.
2. The relevant facts of the case are that petitioner filed a suit assailing the order of Commissioner Rawalpindi dated 26th August, 1980 requisitioning his bungalow No. 15-25F-6;2 Islamabad under section 3 of the West Pakistan Requisitioning of Immovable Property (Temporary Powers) Act, 1956.
Alongwith the suit he also filed an application seeking temporary injunction pending decision of the suit. The learned Senior Civil Judge ride order dated 13th October. 1980 dismissed the application for temporary injunction, He thereafter tiled an appeal and the learned District Judge dismissed the same on 30th October, 1980.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the documents placed on the record prima.
Facie establish that the property in dispute was in occupation of the petitioner on the day it was requisitioned, as such under provisions of section 3 of the aforementioned Act, 1956 was not liable to requisition. It was submitted that in parawise comments submitted by the respondent in civil Court, it was admitted that the petitioner had occupied the disputed property subsequent to the order of requisition. It was also submitted that the learned District Judge has also observed in the impugned order that the property in dispute at the relevant time was in occupation of some chowkidar only which also shows that the occupation of the disputed property was with the petitioner. He relied on Mrs. Nema v. West Pakistan (PLD 1969 Kar. 622) and Muhammad Tujail v.
Province of the Punjab and others (PLD 1978 Lah. 87) in support of his contention.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent, on other hand, submitted that the property in dispute was lying vacant and it was rightly requisi--tioned by the Commissioner, Rawalpindi Division. He relied on Begum Tahira Fazal Ahmad v. Home Secretary, Govt. Of Pakistan (PLD 1966 Lah. 446).
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. The question for determination in this petition is whether the learned Courts below had exercised discretion in refusing to grant temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner arbitrarily or in a fanciful manner. The peru--sal of the impugned orders reveals that both the Courts applied their mind to the points involved in this case and gave reasons for refusing to grant temporary injunction in the matter. The unanimous discretion exercised, therefore, cannot be considered to be arbitrary or fanciful. This Court in such circumstances would be reluctant to interfere in the dis--cretionary orders of the Courts below in the exercise of revisional Juris--diction as provided under section 115, C.P.C.
PLD 1970 SC 139), the Supreme Court held ;- "It may also be pointed out, with all respect to the learned Single Judge, that he was exercising a limited jurisdiction in revision under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code which is meant primarily for correcting errors made by the subordinate Courts in the exercise of their jurisdiction and not those which are made in their discretion, unless the discretion is found to have been exercised fancifully or arbitrarily."
6. In view of the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the above-referred case, I find no justification to interfere in the discretionary order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and B maintained in appeal by the learned District Judge Islamabad. This petition has no merit and is therefore dismissed with no order as to 1costs.
7. Before parting with this case I consider it necessary to direct the learned trial Judge to decide the suit expeditiously within three months from the date of this order. .