' This revision petition is directed against order dated 13-9-1980 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Faisalabad accepting the appeal against order dated 23-7-1979 passed by learned trial Court through which the application for issuance of temporary injunction was accepted.
2. The learned trial Court held that the petitioner had prima facie case and the case was fit one for issuance of temporary injunction.
3. The case of the petitioner/plaintiff was based on sale-deed dated 18-1-1978 through which he purchased Killa No, 11 of square No,57 whereas he also claimed title in killa No, 12 of square No,57 in the suit. The learned lower Appellate Court held that it was not denied that Killa No,12 of square No,57 was part of khewat No,45 which was previously owned by Muhammad Usman and Riaz Hussain defendants alongwith others. The defendants in the suit claimed that they were owners of the suit property from Muhammad Usman defendant whereas the present petitioner/plaintiff claimed to be the owner of the property from Riaz Hussain. In view of these facts coupled with the fact that in the sale-deed of the petitioner no mention was made of killa No,12 of square No,57 and that lease holder/defendants having not attorned to the plaintiff it was held by the learned lower Appellate Court that the plaintiff failed to establish prima facie case and the order of the trial Court was passed by overlooking the above facts. The learned lower Appellate Court in these circumstances, held that the plaintiff/petitioner was not able to establish prima facie case in his favour and in view of the fact that the property was with the tenants no case was made out for maintenance of status quo particularly when the tenants had not attorned to the plaintiff.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner failed to satisfy me that the order passed by learned lower Appellate Court impugned in this revision petition suffers from any material irregularity and illegality calling for interference under section 115 C.P.C. The order passed by learned lower Appellate Court in my view has been passed on sound judicial principles and is in accordance with the rules and principles laid down by the superior Courts regarding issuance of temporary injunction during the pendency of the suit. The petitioner was rightly held to have no prima facie case and balance of convenience was also not in his favour. The injunction application was rightly dismissed by the learned lower Appellate Court on acceptance of appeal. The revision petition has no merits which is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
Revision .