JUDGMENTSHEIKH MUHAMMAD ASADULLAH, J.- A suit for specific performance of the contract has been filed by the petitioner in which he also filed an application for issuance of a temporary injunction restraining the respondent from alienating the property in dispute till the decision of the case. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Kasur accepted the application for grant of temporary injunction vide order dated 23.5.1987. The respondent filed an appeal which was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, Kasur vide order dated 20.12.1987. The petitioner has challenged this appellate decision through this revision petition. I have perused the record and have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The allegation of the respondent is that the document on which the petitioner bases his claim is in itself a forged document.However, this aspect will be gone into and finally settled when the case is decided on merits.For the present it is sufficient to say that admittedly the petitioner is in possession of the property in dispute. It is commonly said that possession in itself is a strong evidence of title. Only on this account the temporary injunction should have been allowed in favour of the petitioner. Apart from that the learned counsel for the respondent made a statement before the learned trial court on 16.10.1986 in which he stated that he had no objection to the grant of interim relief prayed for by the petitioner-plaintiff. In view of this statement the temporary relief could not be refused to the petitioner.
3, The revision petition is, therefore, accepted. The appellate decision dated 20.12.1987., is set aside and the order dated 23.5.1987 of the learned Senior Civil Judge is restored.