ABDUL RAHIM KAZI, J.- This is application moved by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 C.P.C, read with section 151 C.P.C with prayer that the defendants be restrained from selling, changing or otherwise disposing of the shop (two shops) and two rooms on the ground floor of the building bearing No.RB.7/13/1 Robson Road Karachi, hereinafter referred to as the suit building. The case of the plaintiff as given in the plaint is that the plaintiff had purchased the suit building from Daily Nawai Waqt Publication for total sum of Rs.50,000/- out of which Rs.48,(100/- had been paid to the owner who confirmed the sale and delivered the possession along with all the documents to the plaintiff through their letter dated 19.9.1969. It is also the case of the plaintiff that he had been in possession of the said building which is a three store yed building since the year i.e. 1954 and he was carrying the business of Block making in the name and style of "Super Block" on the first floor while he used second floor for his residential purpose. He has also contended that on the ground floor he was carrying on his business connected with block making under the supervision of present defendant No.2 and that the defendant No.1 was an employee of the plaintiff working on salary basis. It is contended that the two defendants had been in collusion and defendant No. 1 filed the Suit No.236/69 against the defendant No.2 for restoration of moveable goods and possession of the shop on the ground floor on the basis of tenancy agreement dated 7.10.1966. It is alleged that an ex parte decree was obtained by the defendants fraudulently on 13.4.1969 and in execution of the said decree the possession of the disputed shop along with two rooms was taken over by them on 5.9.1969 through bailiff of the Court. It is further averred that on 9.9.1969 the defendant No.2 filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C, and this decree was set aside whereafter the defendant No.2 filed his written statement and contested the suit. The present plaintiff on 20.1.1971 filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C, to be joined as party to the said suit but before his application could be taken up for hearing the parties to the suit entered into compromise whereby the possession was permitted to be retained by the defendant No. 1 as tenant of defendant No.2. An application for review was moved by the present plaintiff which was allowed and the compromise decree was set aside on 22.12.1973. This order passed in review was challenged in appeal by the present defendants and the appeal of the defendant No. 1 was allowed on 9.8.1974 and the original compromise decree was restored. This order passed in appeal was not challenged and admittedly holds the field. The plaintiff thereafter filed a suit being Suit No.1663/69 for declaration and possession but the said suit was withdrawn by him without any permission to i.e a fresh suit whereafter the plaintiff filed suit No.642/81 before this Court which is still pending. In this|suit he has sought declaration that the compromise decree obtained in Suit No.236/69 to be declared as in-operative, ultra vires and not binding and also an injunction has been sought in similar terms as in the present suit. It is further alleged by the plaintiff that after filing of the suit No.642/81 the present defendants have collusively forged an agreement on .''36.1981 whereby the defendant No.2 has agreed to sell the suit the suit property i<> the present defendant No.1 for valuable consideration of Rs.90,000/-.
2. The defendant No.2 is cv parte in the present suit while defendant No. 1 has contested the suit and has filed the counter-affidavit of his attorney. I have heard Mr. Mohammad Saleem Iqbal, learned counsel for the plaintiff and Mr. Dilawar Hussain Attorney for the defendant No. 1.
3. In order to conclude if the parties are entitled to grant of an injunction the three ingredients are to be taken into consideration i.e. Whether the plaintiff has a prima facie case, whether he is likely to suffer an irreparable loss and if the balance of convenience is in his favour. It is also settled law that all the three ingredients must co-exist in order to entitle the plaintiff for grant of injunction. In the present case the claim of the plaintiff is based on his purchase of the building in dispute from the Nawai Waqt Publication but he has not produced any title documents in favour of Nawai Waqt Publication or in favour of the present plaintiff. He has not even produced agreement of sale much less sale deed duly executed and registered as required under the provisions of Transfer of Property Act. Ln order to substantiate the above claim the plaintiff has produced photo stat copies of the three receipts of which two are on the letter head of daily Nawai Waqt. Lahore and 3rd one is on a plain paper bearing signature of Fariduddin Ahmad. Signature on these three receipts do not telly with each other. Moreover the first receipt for Rs.5,(KK)/- shows that the amount was received by daily Nawai Waqt, Lahore from one "Tulsidas" while the second receipt which is for Rs.l5.00U/- shows the amount was received from Mrs. Sarswatibai w/o Tulsidas and the present plaintiff while the 3rd receipt for Rs.28,000/- also shows the amount to have been received from Mrs. Sarswatibai and the present plaintiff. There is nothing mi record or even averred in the plaint if this Mrs. Sarswa tibai had transferred or relinquished her right in the suit building, if any, in favour of the present plaintiff. Also the first receipt dated 7.6.1958 mentions that the "balance of Rs.45.000/- to be paid at the time of transfer of the property". There is no other documents or evidence placed on record to show that the possession of the property was at any time handed over to the present plaintiff whereas admittedly the business on the ground floor was being run by the present defendant No.2 in his supervision.
4. Ln view of the above discussion, it is obvious that he had not acquired the property through AND sale deed and as such no title in the suit property could be said to have been acquired by the present plaintiff. Merc passing of receipts by the ow per do not fulfil the requirement of Section 54 of the Transfer of Properly Act. Lt may also be observed that as staled in the plaint the order passed by the Appellate C Court on 9.8.1974 in Civil Appeal has the effect of restoring the compromise decree passed in Suit No.236/69/. This order not having been challenged in any further proceedings, such as revision or constitution petition, holds the filed. Moreover it may be observed that plaintiffs own case further is that he had previously filed a suit in Lower Court being Suit No.1663/69 which was withdrawn by him and also that his other suit being suit No.643/81 is pending before this Court. In view of the above discussion. I am of the view that the two essential ingredients in the present suit i.e. Prima facie title and possession arc both lacking and as such the plaintiff has no prima facie case in his favour. ln view of the above discussion. I find no force in the present application which is dismissed with no order as to costs.