' This civil revision arises from the order of the learned District Judge, Multan, whereby he on 30-3- 1981 reversed the order dated 6th October, 1980, passed by Civil Judge, Khanewal granting injunction under order X.XXIX, rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. In a suit for specific performance filed by Ch, Nasrullah Khan against Mst. Qudrat Jan and four others, respondents.
2. The facts leading up to this revision in brief are that on 1-7-1980 Ch. Nasrullah Khan, petitioner, filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 4-5-1968 against Mst. Qudrat Jan and four others. Alongwith the suit he moved application for restraining the respondents from interfering with his possession. The learned trial Court allowed the application on 6-10-1980. Feeling aggrieved Mst. Qudrat Jan filed an appeal which was accepted by the learned District Judge on 30-3-1981. Hence this revision.
3. Learned counsel contends that-
(1) the possession of the suit land although not delivered to the petitioner at the time of the execution of agreement to sell that was subsequently delivered after Mst. Qudrat Jan had obtained proprietary rights ;
(ii) that the learned District Judge has not properly appreciated the question of the grant of temporary injunction inasmuch as the plaintiff/petitioner has a prima facie case, the balance of convenience is in his favour and that in case the temporary injunction is not granted he would suffer irreparable loss. Furthermore, Qamaruz Zaman tenant has given an affidavit to the effect that he was a tenant under the petitioner/plaintiff and that possession through a tenant is a mediate possession which has to be protected during the pendency of the suit.
4. After hearing the learned counsel and going through the record I find that the agreement to sell was allegedly executed by Mst. Qudrat Jan on 4-5-1968 ; that the same is not a registered document ; that the execution of this agreement has been denied by Mst. Qudrat Jan ; that in the agreement it has clearly been stated that in case the land is not transferred to the appellant/plaintiff Mst. Qudrat Jan would pay a Tawan of Rs, 10,000; that even in the agreement it the delivery of the possession has not been mentioned ; that there is no documentary evidence to show that Mst. Qudrat Jan after having obtained proprietary rights had delivered possession to the appellant/plaintiff and that although the proprietary rights were conferred on 17-6-1980 yet there is no Khasra Girda wari in the name of the petitioner/plaintiff. In these circumstances I am convinced that the trial Court was not legally justified to grant temporary injunction on the affidavit of Qamaruz Zaman, tenant. Even otherwise the learned Additional District Judge was legally competent to set aside the order passed by the trial Court. He has fully applied his mind to the case and has given cogent reasons in support of his decision and as such it cannot be said that his order either suffers from illegality or from any material irregularity. It appears that he has exercised his jurisdiction properly and carefully.
5. For what has been stated above there being no merit, the Civil Revision is dismissed in limine.