ARBAB MUHAMMAD TAHIR, J. The instant revision petition has arisen out of orders dated 05.01.2022 and 22.02.2022 passed by the Civil Judge and the Additional District Judge-I, Islamabad(W est) respectively , whereby application under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 and 2 CPC for the grant of temporar y injunction in suit for specific performance of agreement dated 10.09.2013 along with declaration, mandatory and permanent injunction filed by the petitioner was dismissed while appeal met the same fate.
2. Precisely , the subject matter of the suit is Flat No.303, 2nd Floor , Suhan Apartments, Islamabad. The petitioner is ex-wife of respondent No.1 and claims ownership of the subject flat on the basis of agreement dated 10.09.2013, specific performance of which had been sought through the referred suit, which was duly contested by the respondents. Together with the suit, an application for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1&2 of CPC has also been filed, which was duly contested by the respondents and the learned Trial Court dismissed the same on being found meritless vide order dated 05.01.2022 while appeal met the same fate vide order dated 22.02.2022, hence, the instant civil revision petition.
3. The circumference of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that not only the essentials to prove the transaction as benami are floating on the record but the fact of making initial payment of the subject flat by the petitioner is also visible , therefore, there was no justification to turn down her application for the grant of temporary injunction particularly when she retains possession of the subject flat as well, therefore, concurrent orders of the two learned Courts being against the law and facts are liable to be set aside. Learned counsel fortified his submissions by referring case laws reported as 2008 MLD 30 (Lahore), 2012 CLD 1225 (Sindh), 2018 YLR 2219 (Islamabad), and 2019 MLD 69 (Balochistan).
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents 2 & 3 argued that petitio ner had nothing to do with the agreement dated 10.09.2013 inter se the respondents 1 & 2; that she is also stopp ed by her words and conduct as she earlier preferred suit for cancellation of the same agreement; that the agreement had already been acted upon while no case for the grant of temporary injunction is made out, therefore, the insta nt revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. Heard, record examined.
6. The well-settled considerations for the grant or refusal of temporary injunction, have been laid down by a four- member larger Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "Muhammad Umar v. Sultan Mahmood" (PLD 1970 SC 139), in terms firstly , whether the plaintiff has a prima fade good ease; secondly , whether the balance of convenience lies in favour of the grant of injunction; and thirdly , whether the plainti ff would suffer irreparable loss if the injunction is refused.
7. The perusal of record reveals that the suit was initially taken up on 17.07.2021 wherein ad-interim injunction was granted restraining the respondents from selling or alienating the suit property to someone else till next date of hearing subject to deposit of remaining sale consideration in the Court within 30 days by the petitioner/plaintif f. The ad-interim injunction was made conditional subject to deposit of remaining sale consideration but the record is silent to show that the petitioner/plaintif f had complied with the direction in order to show bonafide and willingness to comply with the stipulation.
8. As per para-4 of the plaint, out of total sale consideration Rs.20,00,000/- petitioner paid Rs. 10,00,000/- through Pay Order dated 09.09.2013 and the possession of the said plot was handed over to her but the said document available on file as Annexure-F did not lend support to her stance while agreement dated 10.-9.2013 Annexure-E reveals that the same was entered into between respondents 1 & 2.
9. In addition, there is no denial of the fact that earlier petitioner filed a suit for the cancellation of the same agreement and that the same had already been acted upon. In the circumstances, when the petitioner had failed to deposit remaining sale consideration and to bring on record any document showing her claim as pleaded, there was no justification to issue temporary injunction as prayed for. The orders of the two learned courts when seen in the context of facts of the instant case and the law on the subject, appear to be well-reasoned and do not call for any interference.
10. Although the powers vested in this Court in terms of section 115 C.P.C. are supervisory in nature yet cannot be invoked against conclusions of law or facts, not affecting the jurisdiction of courts. The investigation into the facts found concurrently by the courts below is deprecated by the Apex Court in the case of "Cantonment Board through Executive Officer, Cantt. Board, Rawalpindi v. Ikhlaq Ahmed and others" (2014 SCMR 161). In addition, no irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction is found, consequently , instant revision petition fails and accordingly dismissed.