Ch. Muhammad Ibrahim Zia, C.J.- The captioned petition for leave to appeal has been filed against the judgment of the High Court dated 30.01.2019, whereby, the revision petition filed by respondent No. 1, herein, has been accepted.
2. The precise facts of the case are that plaintiff respondent No.1, herein, filed a suit for perpetual injunction pertaining to land bearing survey No. 702 min measuring 1 Kanal situated in revenue estate of Dhagrote Tehsil and District Kotli before Senior Civil Judge Kotli on 21.11.2016 and also moved an application for interim injunction which was granted initially on 22.11.2016. The said Court after obtaining objections and hearing the parties vacated the interim injunction on 21.11.2017. Feeling aggrieved from the aforesaid order, the plaintiff preferred an appeal before the first appellate Court on 25.02.2017. The learned District Judge after hearing the parties upheld the order passed by the Senior Civil Judge vide order dated 15.10.2018. Against the said order, respondent No.1, herein, filed a revision petition before the High Court. The learned High Court after necessary proceedings has accepted the revision petition and set-aside the orders dated 15.10.2018 and 22.02.201 passed by the subordinate Courts and confirmed the interim injunction dated 21.11.2016. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal.
3. Mr. Arshad Majeed Malick, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioners after narration of necessary facts submitted that the learned trial Court as well as first appellate Court after proper appreciation of the record, facts and circumstances of the case, passed speaking orders. The learned High Court has misinterpreted the report of local commission while taking into consideration the portion of it, thus, fell in error of law while ignoring the judgments of the Courts below and granted the interim injunction, whereas, it is proved from the record as well as the report of local commission that the suit of the respondent is not maintainable and does not fall within the definition of arguable case, therefore, it is an important proposition justifies grant of leave.
4. Conversely, Mian Sultan Mehmood, Advocate, the learned counsel for the respondents opposed the petition and submitted that the learned High Court has rightly granted the interim injunction as it is proved from the record that the land is in possession of the plaintiff-respondent and the defendant-petitioner has intended to illegally encroach and disturb his legal rights of the plaintiff, thus, the learned High Court has rightly passed the impugned judgment.
5. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and examined the record made available. As in this case, the local commission was appointed for the spot inspection and the question of partial reliance of the report of commission has been raised. The learned High Court while setting aside the order of the two Courts below has granted the interim injunction through impugned judgment is also question of public importance, thus, for doing complete justice, leave is granted for resolution of the propositions. The petitioners shall deposit security of Rs. 1000/- within two weeks' time, otherwise, the leave granting order shall automatically stand rescinded. The office shall proceed further according to rules.