SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the order dated 17-6-1986 of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, dismissing the appeal of the petitioners against the refusal of the trial Court to grant temporary injunction in their favour.
2. The dispute relates to 123 Kanals and 13 Marlas of agricultural laud situate in Chak No.95 of Tehsil Chishtian. It was owned by Mst. Hanifan who is now dead and is represented by respondents Nos.1, 2 and 3. Being a woman she was unable to manage her property. By a registered deed dated 18-7- 1978 she constituted Muhammad Iqbal, respondent No.5, as her attorney. About 3j; years later by another registered deed dated 16-2-1982 she cancelled the earlier deed of 18-7-1978 on the ground that Muhammad Iqbal was intending to fraudulently dispose of her property. On 17-9-1985 she exchanged the land in dispute with respondent No.4.
3. It appears that in pursuance of the power of attorney executed by Mst. Hanifan in his name, Muhammad Iqbal on 5-9-1981 entered into an agreement with the petitioners to sell the land in dispute to them for a sum of Rs.3,10,000 and received an amount of Rs.2,00,000 by way of earnest money. It may be mentioned that the petitioners are his son-in-law and brother-in-law. Mst.
Hanifan refused to abide by this agreement. On 22-10-1985 the petitioners instituted a suit at Chishtian for the specific performance of the agreement. Together with their plaint they submitted an application for temporary injunction for the protection of their possession pendent lite. It may be mentioned that the land was in possession of the tenants and according to petitioners the tenants had attorned in their favour. The trial Court dismissed the application holding that the petitioners were not in physical possession of the land; that their case on limitation was weak; that the balance of convenience did not lie on their side and that in the event the temporary injunction was not granted to them, they were not likely to suffer irreparable loss. From the order of the trial Court the petitioners preferred an appeal in the High Court. The High Court took the view that the petitioners had not been able to make out a prima facie case in their favour and declined to interfere with the finding of the trial Court that in the absence of a temporary injunction the petitioners were not likely to suffer any irreparable loss.
4. The petitioners seek leave to appeal from the order of the High Court. The learned counsel has not been able to persuade us that the finding of the High Court that the petitioners had not been able to make out a prima facie case in their favour requires interference by this Court. We would accordingly dismiss this petition.