' The petitioners filed a suit for possession of the suit land measuring 138 kanals 13 marlas situated in village Chiniot on 2nd October 1978. Along with the suit there was an application for the grant of temporary injunction restraining the respondents from digging the earth from the suit land and also from cutting the trees standing thereon. This application was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, Chiniot vide his order dated 10th March, 1979. An appeal was preferred by the petitioners but the same was also dismissed by the learned District Judge, Jhang, vide his order dated 23rd May, 1979 which has been impugned in the present revision.
2. The only reason given by the learned District Judge in not accepting the application was that in the present suit no right had so far accrued to the petitioners and no decree had so far been passed in their favour', and therefore, no restriction could be imposed on the vehdees in the lawful exercise of their rights as owners of the property.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents has supported the ground taken by the learned District Judge in dismissing the appeal and refusing to grant temporary injunction and has relied on Mohammad Siraj v. Kaniz Zohra, wherein the vendees were allowed to make improvements on the land in question pending the disposal of the suit in the exercise of right of pre-emption.
4. To my mind both the Courts below have completely misconstrued the point in issue. This was not a case of making improvements on the land in question but the case of the petitioners was that the respondents were digging the land and extracting the earth therefrom with the result that it was being rendered useless for the cultivation purposes. This being an act which had the effect of wasting the subject-matter of the suit, the same A could be restrained by way of temporary injunction. The case was clearly covered under Order XXXIX, rule 1, C. P. C., and a temporary1 injunction ought to have been granted. The case cited above is clearly distinguishable The injunction prayed for could not be refused in the circumstances of the case. The learned counsel for the respondent has apprised me that an area of 4 Acres of land had already been extracted and that the petitioners do not intend to dig the earth from any other area. This statement of the respondent is, however, refuted by the petitioners.
5. In the light of the above discussion this revision is accepted and the petitioners are restrained from digging the earth and cutting the trees standing on the land in dispute any more and the orders of both the Courts below are set aside and the temporary injunction, as prayed for by the petitioners, is granted pending the disposal of the suit. However, in the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs. NLR 1979 Civil 352