' The facts giving rise to this revision are that Anaras Khan, respondent/ plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against Sardar Muhammad petitioner/defendant and Muhammad Ibrahim for restraining them from ignoring his proprietary rights in the disputed land measuring 65 Kanals, 3 marlas situated in Chak No, 23/11-L, Tehsil and District Sahiwal and from transferring the same to some other person. With the plaint, Anaras Khan respondent filed an application for the grant of temporary injunction. The learned trial Court vide its order dated 18-4-1974, dismissed the application. The trial Court was of the view that since the proprietary rights were not granted to Sardar Muhammad, petitioner, he could not transfer the ownership rights to any one. The Court was of the view that the suit in its present form was not maintainable. Feeling aggrieved from this order, Anaras Khan . Respondent filed an appeal and the learned Additional District Judge, Sahiwal vide his order dated 17-1-1976, accepted the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the trial Court and issued injunction restraining defendants from removing the trees from the disputed property. It is to be noted that the prayer of the respondent/ plaintiff for the grant of injunction was accepted to this extent only that the petitioners defendants were restrained from removing the trees from the disputed property.
2. Feeling dissatisfied with this order, Sardar Khan petitioner filed this revision before this Court which was admitted for regular 'hearing and record was also called for but no stay was granted.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently supported the order and the reasoning of the learned trial Judge. He submits that the agreement dated 13-4.1964 was with regard to the State land of which Sardar Muhammad was the guarantee under the Ejected Tenant Scheme and that the Government have not yet executed the deed of conveyance in his favour and as such Anaras Khan respondent has not acquired ownership rights unless a sale deed had been executed firstly in favour of Sardar Khan petitioner followed by a sale deed in favour of Anaras Khan and that the agreement to sell does not create any interest in or charge on such property. He urges that the plaintiff-respondent as failed to make out a good prima facie case. He submits that the balance of convenience is not in favour of the plaintiff and that he would not suffer any irreparable loss, in case, the injunction is refused.
' As against this the learned counsel for the respondent Anaras Khan, has vehemently defended the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge. He states that the question at the stage of an application under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. Was whether the plaintiff has prima facie or at least an arguable case or not. He submits that the entire sale price had been deposited by Sardar Khan, petitioner No, 1, before the execution of the agreement with the respondent.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties I find that the learned Additional District Judge has applied his mind to the legal and factual aspect of the matter keeping in mind the pre- requisites for the issuance of a temporary injunction and that he has given sound and cogent reasons for setting aside the order of the trial Court, I am of the opinion that in the suit for permanent injunction the grant of temporary injunction should, ordinarily be a rule. I find that the learned Additional District Judge has issued temporary injunction only to this extent that he restrained the defendants from removing the trees from the disputed property and as such no exception can be taken to it.
5. Since this injunction was issued on 17-1-1976, and the suit before the trial Court has not made any progress for the reason that the record of the case which was sent for by this Court on 2-2-1976, was retained in the High Court and was not sent back and it has really shocked me.
' Keeping in mind the peculiar circumstances of the case and the fact that the injunction was granted on 17-1-1976 by the learned Additional District Judge, restraining the present petitioners from removing the trees from the disputed property I would like to make a slight modified citation as follows :- "The defendants in the suit are restrained from removing the trees from the disputed property, however, they may clear the branches if necessary.
6. Since the suit is pending before the trial Court and could not proceed for the reason given above I direct the learned trial Court to conclude the proceedings within two months positively.
7. The office is directed to send back the record of the case to the trial Court immediately through special messenger. No order as to costs.