Through this civil revision the order dated 20.05.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge Class-I, Jhelum whereby the application for issuance of temporary injunction was dismissed and the order dated 12.6.2006 passed by the learned District Judge, Jhelum whereby the appeal was dismissed have been challenged.
2. The relevant facts for the disposal of this civil revision are that petitioners who are 16 in number filed a suit for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction against the respondent. The claim of the plaintif fs was that property Bearing No. 5-V-II-2-S/8 Bano Bazar , Jhelum was treated as evacuee property by Rehabilitation authorities. The Municipal Corporation moved the petition challenging the said order whereby the said property was treated as evacuee but the said petition was dismissed and so in the year 1974 the petitioners applied for the allotment and property was allotted to the petitioners on 17.6.1974 and PTD was issued. The appeal of the Municipal Committee was also dismissed. Thereafter the Municipal Committee moved an ejectment petition before the Rent Controller , which was also dismissed and appeal before the appellate Court was also dismissed.
Thereafter the Municipal Committee tried to take possession of the land and the petitioners filed suit which was decreed. Thereafter the Municipal Committee issued a notice under Martial Law Regulation No. 821 to the petitioners that they were un-authorized occupants, which was challenged in the High Court and since the matter relates to the factual inquiry , so the High Court dismissed the petition of the petitioners on the ground that the matter should be agitated before the Civil Court but the petitioners moved a petition for leave to appeal before the August Supreme Court which was withd rawn on the ground that the matter would be agitated before the Civil Court, so the present suit was filed. The prayer was that the petitioners are owners in possession and respondent be restrained to challenged their possession or to dispossess them. Along with the main suit the application for temporary injunction was moved praying therein that till the final disposal of the suit the order for maintaining the status quo be issued in all respects.
3. The suit as well as application was resisted by the TMA who maintained that Additional Commissioner (Settlement) had decided the matter in favour of Municipal Committee and the matter was agitated by the petitioners before the High Court and the High Court declared the petitioners to be their tenants and their claim of ownership was not accepted. Thereafter the petitioners filed a petition for leave to appeal before the August Supreme Court which was withdrawn. The learned trial Court dismissed the petition on the basis of decision of High Court and the same is the case of appellate Court as mentioned above and dismissed the appeal, so, the present civil revision.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners almost agitated the same points as mentioned above and contended that the petitioners had prima facie case and balance of convenience leans in their favour and if they would be dispossessed, they would suffer irreparable loss and placed reliance upon "Syed Israr Ahmad through L.Rs. and others vs. Muhammad Shafi through LRs and others" (1997 SCMR 1934 ). During the pendency of this civil revision, the petitioners also moved C.M. No. 538-C-201 1 with the prayer that the shops be unlocked which had been put under seal in illegal and unauthorized manner . On this petition he conte nded that even if the petitioners were tenants, the respondent was not authorized to seal the shops and at the most he could file an ejectment petition against the tenants.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, supported the impugned orders of both the Courts below and also contended that the shops were sealed prior to filing of the suit.
6. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the main civil revision pertains to the interim order whereby the application for temporary injunction was dismissed by both the Courts below .
7. As far as the Matter which came up for hearing before the High Court, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that writ petition was dismissed by the High Court on the ground that the matter should be agitated before the Civil Court. Copy of this Writ Petition No. 793-1994 is available on the record, which was decided on 12.3.2002 along with the other writ petition since common question of facts and law was involved. The perusal of this order shows that in the said writ petition the disputed property was also involved. Para-5 of the said judgment for convenience is reproduced as under:- "I have gone through the impugned order and documents attached with these petitions. Admittedly , the petitions have been filed after more than 8 years and badly suffer from lathes. It is inconceivable that the order dated 1.1.1986 passed by the Deputy Administrator (Residual Property) was kept hidden for more than eight years. There is nothing on record to show that the property in question was treated an evac uee property by the competent authority before 1.1.1957 i.e. the target date under the Pakistan Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1957. The remand order dated 30.01.1984 by which the case was remanded for demarcation to see whether the property was owned by the Municipal Committee or was evacuee property was not challenged and attained finality . The demarcation report clearly shows that the property falls in Khasra number owne d by the Municipal Committee.
Even otherwise the demarcation being a question fact cannot be challenged in the constitutional jurisdiction. The petitioners entered into an agreement with the Municipal Committee accepting the Municipal Committee as owner of property and other land lord. On the basis of the agreements reached between the petitioners and the Municipal Committee the civil suits were disposed of. The petitioners cannot be allowed to turn around and challenge the same. The contention of the petitioners that the agreement was entered into under duress is not acceptable. There is no evidence on record to this effect. Even otherwise it is a question of fact which cannot be gone into for the annulment of the agreement."
8. Perusal of the above-said para clearly shows that High Court specifically observed that there was nothing on record to show that the property in dispu te was treated as evacuee property by the competent authority before 1.1.1957. It further observed that demarcation report also shows that property falls in khasra numbers owned by the Municipal Committee. It was also observed that the petitioners were entered into an agreement with the Municipal Committee accepting the Municipal Committee as owner of the property and their landlord and it was further observed that the petitioners cannot be allowed to turn around and challenged the same. In this way in the above-said writ petition the ownership of the petitioners was not accepted, so both the Courts below rightly by placing reliance upon this order dismissed the petition for issuance of temporary injunction.
9. As far as C.M. No. 538-C-201 1 is concerned with regard to sealing of the property , this dispute does not relate to the present controversy and petitioners had the remedy to challenge it before the competent Court of law, if so, advised and petition before this Court is not maintainable and same also stands dismissed.
10. In view of what has been said above this civil revision has no force and the same stands dismissed.