MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, C.J.--- Petitioners/ Plaintif fs through the instant Petition filed under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. sought interim injunction against the Respondents to the effect that the Respondents may be restrained from stopping the cattle of Petitioners/Plaintif fs from pasture in dispute . Petitioners/Plaintif fs also seek direction of this Court not to create hurdle s in the way of Petitioners/Plaintif f during taking their cattle to Singul Nala till final disposal of the Revision Petition vide No. 40/2019.
2. Brief facts of the case leading to filing the Petition in hand are that ' Petitioners/ Plaintif fs had instituted a Civil Suit before learned Civil Judge Punial/Ish koman for declaration along with conseq uential relief on the grounds as detailed in the head note of the Plaint.
3. Defendants Nos. 1 to 3 have contested the suit by filing their written statement on many legal and factual grounds and denied the averments of Plaint.
4. Defendants Nos. 4 and 5 have also filed their separate written statement and claimed that the suit land is Khalisa Sarkar and Petitioners/ Plaintif fs have no concerned with the suit land.
5. The learned trial Court after completion of the Proceedings decreed the Suit of the Plaintif fs as prayed for vide Judgment/Decree dated 10-10-2013.
6. Being dis-content with the aforesaid Judgment/Decree of the learned Civil Judge Punial/Ishkman Defendants Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 have preferred an Appeal before the learned First Appellate Court. The learned First Appellate Court after registering the Civil Appeal, heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, accepted the Civil First Appeal of the Defendants/Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 and dismissed the Suit of the Petitioners/ Plaintif fs vide Judgment/Decree dated 12.4.2019 passed in C.F.A. No.73/2013. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid Judgment/Decree of the learned First Appellate Court Petitioners/Plaintif fs have preferred Civil Revision Petition Vide No. 40/2019 before this Court. After hearing of preliminary arguments of learned counsel for the Petitioners/ Plaintif f this Court had entered the Petition in hand and directed the parties to maintain status quo of the subject matter till 22-5-2019. Later-on the said Status quo order was extended till 04-10-2019 and from 04- 10-2019 case was remained adjourned for a date in of fice.
7. The Learned counsel for the Petitioners/Plaintif fs submitted that due to pandemic crona virus Petitioners were not been able to restore status quo of this Court. He further submitted that Petitioners/Plaintif fs being owners of the disputed pasture have rights of pasturing since 1955 and are getting all benefits from the disputed pasture. He further submitted that Petitioners/Plaintif fs are using/utilize their rights from the disputed pasture w.e.f. 1997 till 1999 on the basis of Court orders. He further submitted that summer season is started and Petitioners were taking their cattle to the pasture and the defendants/Respondents Nos.1 to 3 is bent upon to stop the Petitioners/Plaintif fs from taking their cattle to the pasture in suit. He further submitted that Defendants/Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 have threatened the Petitioners/ Plaintif fs for dire-consequences, but the local police have failed to control the situation.
He further submitted that Petitioners/ Plaintiffs have no option but to turn back their cattle. He further submitted that learned trial Court has decreed the Suit of, the Petitioners/Plaintif fs as prayed for and the learned First Appellate Court has set aside the Decree of he learned trial Court and declared the pasture in Suit as Khalisa Sarkar under Nautore Rules prevailing in Gilgit Baltistan. He further submitted that the learned First Appellate Court has also granted only the grazing rights and fetching of firewood from disputed pasture to Defendants/Respondents Nos. 1 to 3. He further submitted that there is divergent views of both Courts, therefore, prima facie case of Petitioners/Plaintif fs is arguable one, and balance of conveniences also in favour of the Petitioners/Plaintif fs and if the status quo is not granted Petitioners/Plaintif fs are suf fering from irreparable loss.
8. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Petitioners/Plaintif fs and have also perused the record available on file.
9. It evinced from record that Petitioners/Plaintif fs have preferred a Civil Revision Petition before this Court on 27-4- 2019 which has been put up before the Court on 08-5-2019 and on 08.05.2019 this Court after hearing preliminary arguments of learned 'counsel for the Petitioners/Plaintif fs granted Status quo of the subject matter till 22.5.2019.
Later-on the status quo order granted by the this. Court has been extended till 24-6-2019 and from 24.6.2019 the said Revision Petition has remained adjourned for a date in office and has not been put up before the Court till 16- 9-2019 and on 16-9-2019 case has been put up before the Court and on the same date this Court has also extended the Status quo order till 04-10-2019 and from 04-102019 case has remained un-heard and Status quo order has not been extended.,
10. It is settled law that temporary injuncti on can be granted only where Plaintif fs have a prima facie arguable case, balance of convenience should be in favour of the Plaintif fs and there should be irreparable loss to plaintif fs if temporary injunction is not granted and all the ingredients should co-exists. In the present case prima facie it reveals from contents of this Petition that Petitioners/ Plaintif fs were grazing their cattle in the suit pasture since 1955 and the litigation has been started between the parties when Defendants/Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 restrained the Petitioners/Plaintif fs from taking their cattle to pasture in dispute in the year 1997. Petitioners/Plaintif fs used their rights from 1997 to 2019 on the basis of Court Orders.
11. Since the main Revision Petition vide No. 40/2019 is pending adjudication before this Court and Status quo order has been granted in the main Revision Petition and contentions of learned counsel for the Petitioners/Plaintif fs prima facie find support from the order sheets maintained in this Court, therefore, to decide real controversy between the parties and to save the parties from further litigation I deem it proper to allow this Petition.
12. For what has been discussed above, this Petition is allowed and temporary injunction is hereby granted in favor of the Petitioners/Plaintif fs and the Respondents/Defendants are restrained from stopping of the cattle of the Petitioners/Plaintif fs into the disputed pasture and womenfolk of the Petitioners/ Plaintif fs may also not be stopped while taking their cattle to Singul Nala till disposal of main Revision Petition. No order as to cost. Copy of this Order be placed in main Revision Petition. This file after due completion be consigned to record.