ALI BAIG, J.---Through the instant revision petition filed under section 115, C.P.C. the petitioners/ plaintif fs (herein after called as petitioners) have assailed the impugned judgment/order dated 14.11.2019 passed by the learned District Judge Ghizer whereby the learned first appellate Court has allowed civil first appeal of the present respondents/defendants (herein after called as respondents) by setting aside the judgment/order of the learned trial Court dated 28.6.2019.
2. Succinctly facts leading to the filing of the instant revision petition are that the petitioners instituted a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the respondents in the trial Court claiming therein that the petitioners are entitled to graze their cattle in the disputed pasture fully described in the heading of plaint as per agreement dated 05.07.1968. The petitioners have further averred in the plaint that through the aforesaid agreement the then Raja of Gupis/Kuh-e-Ghizer namely Hussain Ali Khan has allowed the father of petitioners to graze his cattle/goats etc in the suit pasture. Now the responde nts are interfering in the vested right of the petitioners in violation of the aforesaid agreement executed between the father of the petitioners and Raja Hussain Ali Khan the then Governor Kuh of Ghizer , therefore the respondents may be restrained from interfering in the aforesaid right of grazing of their cattle in the suit pasture.
3. The present respondents being defendants in the suit hotly contested the suit by filing their written statement in the learned trial Court wherein they have raised certain legal objections and have repudiated the averments of the plaint.
4. Along with plaint the petitioners had filed an application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, Cr.P.C for grant of temporary injunction in the trial Court. The learned trial Court after hearing arguments on the aforesaid application on behalf of both the parties had allowed the application filed under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. by the petitioners vide judgment/order dated 28.6.2019. The respondents feeling discontent and dissatisfied with the aforementioned judgment/order of the trial. Court had filed a civil first appeal in the Court of the learned District Judge Ghizer . The learned first appellate Court after hearing arguments on behalf of both the parties has allowed the appeal of the respondents and has set aside the judgment/order dated 28.6.2019 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge Gahkuch, hence this civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioners in this Court.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended that the impugned judgment/order passed by the learned first appellate Court is contrary to law and facts on the record of the case as such the impugned judgment/order passed by the learned first appellate Court is not maintainable and liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that the petitioners have prima facie arguable case, balance of convenience is in favour of the petitioners and if temporary injunction is not granted, the petitioners shall suffer irreparable loss and injury , therefore by accepting this revision petition temporary injunction may be granted in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents in the interest of justice.
6. Conversely , the learned Addl. A.G. and Raja Shakeel Ahmad Advocate while representing the respondents Set-I controverted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners by contending that since the petitioners have failed to make out prima facie case in their favour , therefore the learned first appellate Court has rightly dismissed the application of the petitioners filed under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. by setting aside the judgment/order of the learned trial Court. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents further argued that the petitioners/plaintif fs have filed suit on the basis of so-called conditional agreement dated 5.7.1968 wherein the present respondents set-I were not party to the said so-called agreement and the then Raja of Gupis Hussain Ali Khan Maqpoon was not competent to allow the petitioners to graze their cattle in the disputed pasture owned by the present respondents (set No.1), thus the so called agreement dated 05.07.1968 is not binding upon the respondents. The learned counsel for the respondents and Additional Advocate General further argued that the so-called agreement and other documents have not been attested by the concerned officers, who are custodians of said documents, therefore said documents are fake and fabricated which are not admissible in evidence, therefore the civil revision filed by the present petitioners having no force may be dismissed to meet the ends of justice.
7. I have given my dispassionate thdught to the arguments advanced by the learned, counsel for the parties and with their valuable assistance, I have gone through the entire record available on file.
8. Perusal of record reveals that the learned trial Court had granted temporary injun ction in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents while allowin g the application of the petitioners filed under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. vide order dated 28.6.2019, which was set aside by the learned first appellate Court vide the impugned judgment/order dated 14.1 1.2019.
7. Admittedly three basic ingredients i.e. prima facie arguable case in favour of the petitioners/plaintif fs, irreparable loss and balance of convenience must be in favour of the plaintif fs which are required to be established for grant of interim injunction and if one of the said ingredients is missing, the said relief cannot be granted to the party seeking interim injunction.
8. Pithily case of the petitioner is that admittedly the petitioners belong to Kohistan KPK and they are not residents of District Ghizer/Handrup village therefore they have no grazing rights in the suit pasture but the petitioners by dint of an agreement dated 05.07.1968 alleg edly was executed between the then Raja Gupis/Kuh Ghizer namely Hussain Ali. Khan Maqpoon and father of the present petitioners namely Malik Nawab are claiming rights of grazing of their cattle in the suit pasture. The petitioners have filed an unattested copy of the aforesaid agreement which has neither been obtained from the proper office/ custodian of said agreement viz A.C. office/the then Assistant Political Agent office Gupis nor from record room of D.C/the then Political Agent Office Gilgit, thus veracity of said documents is highly doubtful. Moreover , the present respondents set-I/residents of village Handrup were not party to the aforesaid conditional agreement, thus the said agreement is not binding on the respondents. Furthermore the G.B.
Government vide memorandum. No. SOLI-14/2015(GZR) dated 17th August 2015 has canceled the so called agreement dated 05.07.1968 on thelB following grounds:-
1. The contract fails the test of originalit y as per AC Office Gupis records henc e it is treated as void ab initio.
Therefore Mr. Malik Nawab or any one from Kohistan KPK no longer enjoys the right to use pasture of Handarap so he shall be ejected immediately .
2 If contract is treated as valid then under contract, he was allowed to use pasture for 3 "Kandak" animals which is roughly 450-600 animals and he was given responsibility to protect Nullah. However , Mr. Malik Nawab has brought 10 Kandak animals as per local estimates. Under present circumstances the pasture for local animals is insufficient hence Mr. Malik Nawab is ordered to retrieve his animals from the pasture so that local animal population is no endangered. Moreover GB Police has established check posts at various Nullahs including Handarap hence Mr. Malik Nawab is no longer required to protect pasture so his right to use pasture under contract is cancelled and he may be ejected from therein. Copies of Court order and contract are enclosed,
3. The contract has that Mr. Afreen shall be responsible to protect the pasture of area in question from intruders.
A.s of present protection. of life and property of people is the sole responsibility of Government and individuals cannot be allowed to guarantee security .
4 The population of District Ghizer has increased manifold and is dependent on their pasture for their livelihood.
Further allowing Mr. Malik Afreen to use the pasture for grazing can create law and order situation in the District.
The provincial Government hereby directs to eject Malik Afreen Khan from the area and the Deputy Commissioner Ghizer to take the land in his custody as khalisa-e-sarkar with grazing. rights to the people of Handarap as per local customs already in vogue.
11. In view of the afore stated facts and circumstances, it appears that principles of prima facie arguable case does not lie in favour of the petitioners and balance of convenience is also not in favour of the petitioners. Lastly the petitioners shall not suffer irreparable loss if temporary injunction, is not granted as the petitioners have their own pastures in District Kohistan (KPK).
12. For the aforementioned reasons, it is apparent that this, revision petition is devoid of merits. The learned counsel for the petitioners could not point out any illegality , irregularity , jurisdictional or legal defect in the impugned judgment passed by the learned first appellate Court calling for interference by this Court under section 115, C.P.C.
Hence instant civil revision petition being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed. Contempt Petition bearing No. 17/2020, Civil. Misc. Petition No 231/202 0, being infractuous are also hereby disposed of through this common judgment. File