This revision is directed against the interim order of the learned District Judge,. Sialkot, dated the 11th August, 1981, declining to grant relief in the form of temporary stay of the operation of the judgment of the learned trial, Civil Judge, Shakargarb, dated the 30th July, 1981, directing demolition of the wall in dispute set up by the petitioner.
2 While rejecting the petitioner's plaint under Order VII, rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure the learned trial Civil Judge, Shakargarh, by his order dated the 30th July, 1981, ordered the petitioner to pay Rs.2,000.00 as costs to the respondent for having brought a false suit and for filing a false affidavit. Ha directed the petitioner to allow the respond.-nt to pass through the passage in dispute and demolish the wall erected by him thereon within seven days otherwise the respondent would be entitled to take out execution of this order. Alongwith the petitioner's appeal against the aforesaid order of the learned Civil Judge there was placed before the learned District Judge, Sialkot, the petitioner's application for staying the operation of the order appealed against. The consideration prevailing with the District Judge for refusing to issue stay order in respect of demolition of wall was that the finding of the learned trial Court was that the plaintiff had come to the Court with unclean hands because the door already existed and he after obtaining a temporary injunction-, had removed the door. A reference to the report of the Local Commissioner would indicate that the petitioner had closed the door during the pendency of the suit and the construction of wall to block the door was quite fresh as the mud was still wet and the manger constructed beside it was also wetty. The Commissioner noticed that there was no possible way of exit for the respondent's animals tethered in the compound whose passage of exit had been blocked by the petitioner. No objection has been filed by the petitioner to the report of the Commissioner in the learned trial Court. In these circumstances prima facie the contents of the Commissioner's report may not be exceptionable, In that view o the matter the reasons given by the learned District Judge for not giving the relief of temporary stay do not appear to be unjustifiable. Hence nj case for interference by this Court in revision is made out.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned District judge had not considered the petitioner's case for granting temporary stay in full perspective otherwise the petitioner would have been able to persuade the learned Judge to pass an order in his favour. He submitted that the petitioner would like to renew before the learned District Judge his request for securing stay of the operation of the order of the learned Civil Judge by moving a fresh application.
That he may do if it is legally permissible and the learned District Judge may deal with it according to law.
4. 1n view of what has been said above this petition is without any force and is dismissed in limine.