ROZI KHAN BARRECH, J.--- This Civil Revision Petition in terms of section 115 of The Code of Civil Procedure (V of 1908) (hereinafter referred as ("C.P .C.") arises out of order dated 20.02.2020 (hereinafter "the impugned Order") passed by learned Additional District Judge Sariab, Quetta, (hereinafter "the appellate Court") wherein the appellate Court while dismissing the appeal under Order III, Rule 1, (R), C.P.C. filed by the appellant upheld the order dated 12.09.2018 passed by learned Civil Judge Sariab, Quetta.
2. Epitomized facts necessary for adjudication of instant petition are that the petitioner/plaintif f filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the respondents/defendants befor e the trial Court along with an application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. with the averments that one Rasool Bakhsh was owner in possession of the property bearing mutati on No.3919 having Khasra No.333/282/281 situated at Mohal and Mouza Khushkaba Takhtani, Tappa Kachi Baig No.1, Tehsil City, District Quetta, measuri ng 0 rod 9 poles which later on purchased by the petitioner/plaintif f and after payment of all the sale consideration amount the mutation entries of the property in question was transferred on the name of plaintif f/petitioner . It is further averred in the plaint that the previous owner of the property in question constructed a house at the said property and no one raised objection. In the meanwhile, when the petitioner/plaintif f purchased the property in question started residing in the same, the defendants/respondents with the collusion of each other with mala fide intention and ulterior motive noticed the previous owner namely Rasool Bakhsh with the averments that the previous owner occupied the area of rainy drain as such the matter was referred to the concerned Tehsildar for its measurement and now the respondents/defendants starting interference in the property in question.
3. The respondents resisted the suit along with application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. filed by the petitioner/plaintif f, being the defendants. While submitting their written statements, they controverted the assertions contained in the plaint as well as in the application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, Cr .P.C.
4. After hearing arguments of both the learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial Court dismissed the application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C.P .C. filed by the petitioner/ plaintif f on 12.09.2018.
5. Being aggrieved from the order , the petitioner/plaintif f filed appeal under Order 43, Rule (1) (R), C.P.C. before the learned Additional District Judge Sariab, Quetta, which was dismissed vide impu gned Order dated 20.02.2019.
Hence this appeal.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is well settled law that an injunction is not to be granted only on the basis of prima facie case exists in favour of the plaintif f, the Courts are required to take into consideration whether the question of balance of convenience or irreparable loss to the party seeking such relief co-exists or not. Reliance is placed on the judgment titled Marghub Siddiqi v. Hamid Ahmed Khan and 2 others 1974 SCMR 519 .
7. It is also settled principle of law that for grant of injunction or refusal thereof, pleading documents and supporting evidence have to be examined and the assessment whereof shall be made tentatively . However , where complicated question about merit of the case requires framing of issue and evidence involved, the injunction order not be issued.
8. In the instant case the petitioner/ plaintif f filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction along with application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. and claimed that he is owner of the property bearing mutation No.3919 having Khasra Nos.333/282/281 situated at Mahal and Mouza Khushkaba Takhtani, Tappa Kachi Baig No.1, Tehsil City, District Quetta, measuring 0 rod 9 poles and the same was purchased from one Rasool Bakhsh.
9. On the other hand, the defendants/respondents claimed that they acquired the said property for flood stream. It is reflected from the report of Tehsildar City Quetta vide letter No.1542 dated 18.11.2017 that the property in question had already been acquired by the Irrigation Department in the year 1991 but the said acquisition has not been incorporated in the record of right. It is established from the record that the said property was acquired by the Irrigation Department and award was also passed and the amount was also paid to the land owners but the said property was not incorporated in the revenue record in the name of Government of Balochistan i.e. Irrigation Department.
For the foregoing reasons, and facts, I am of the view that the plaintif f has failed to make out a prima facie arguable case for grant of injunction in his favour . The balance of convenience also does not lie in favour of petitioner/B plaintif f.
In view of the above, the observations and concurrent findings of both the Courts below , the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintif f has failed to point out any illegality , misreading and non-reading of evidence in the impugned orders Passed by the trial as well as appellate Court, thus, the petition being devoid of any merits is dismissed with no order as to cost.