Through this revision petition the petitioners challenged the order dated 15.05.2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Lahore whereby the application for ad-interim injunction filed by the petitioners/plaintif fs was dismissed and the order dated 27.11.2018 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Lahore, who dismissed the appeal of the petitioners.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners/plaintif fs filed suit for declaration with permanent injunction alleging therein that grandfather of Petitioner No. 2 namely Muhammad Tufail son of Muhammad Boota was owner of suit property details whereof is mentioned in para 2 of the plaint, died on 15.11.2014. Muhammad Asif, father of Petitioner No. 2 died during the life time of Muhammd Tufail. After the death of Muhammad Tufail, Defendant No. 1 dispossessed the petitioners form the suit property and now they are living with the parents of Petitioner No. 1 in Tehsil Pattoki district Kasur . It was also asserted that the dowry articles of Petitioner No. 1 are in possession of the respondents. The Petitioner No. 1 filed suit for recovery of dowry articles which is still pending. It was the case of the petitioner that Muhammad Tufail who was residing in the house with the respondents under their pressure gifted the suit property through Mutation No. 4100 dated 28.11.2013, which was challenged by the petitioners through filing the aforesaid suit. Alongwith the suit, the petitioners also filed application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2, CPC. The respondents contested the suit as well as the application through filing written statement and written reply respectively . The learned trial Court after hearing both sides dismissed the application vide order dated 15.05.2018. Against the said order , the petitioners/plaintif fs filed appeal, which also was dismissed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Lahore vide order dated 27.1 1.2018, hence the present revision petition.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the available record with their able assistance.
4. Admittedly , Petitioner No. 2 is daughter of Muhammad Asif, predeceased son of Muhammad Tufail, who was owner of the suit property at the time of his death. The petitioners only prayed that the respondents be restrained not to alienate the suit property and also not to change the nature and characte r of the suit property during the pendency of the suit. If the respondent/defendants went on alienating the suit property during the pendency of lis, that would cause the multiplicity of litigations. The suit for maintenance filed by the petitioner was decreed but till to date no maintenance was paid. The grandfather of Petitioner No. 2 was owner of the suit property , which was allegedly gifted to Respondent No. 1. As per Section 4 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, after the death of Muhammad Tufail, Petitioner No. 2 is entitled to get her share being daughter of his pre-deceased son, as such, prima-facie the balance of convenience lies in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners fulfilled the criteria as prescribed under the law and if the respondents/defendants changed the nature and character of the suit property and alienated the same, then the petitioners would suffer irreparable loss. But both the Courts below without considering the aforesaid aspects of the matters declined to grant the petitioners temporary injunction, which orders are not sustainable in law .
5. For the foregoing reasons, the instant revision petition is allowed. The orders dated 15.05.2018 and 27.11.2018 passed by both the Courts below are set aside. Resultantly the application for ad-interim injunction filed by the petitioners is accepted and the respondents are restrained to alienate or to change the nature and character of the suit property till final disposal of the main suit. However , the learned trial Court is directed to decide the case within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order .