' On 16-10-1988, Muhammad Bashir Ahmad, petitioner, filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he was the owner in possession of the disputed property and sale-deed dated 5-3-1988 in favour of respondent No,1 executed by Mst. Haleema, respondent No,6, the mother of the petitioner and also of respondent No,1, was illegal, void and ineffective upon his rights. Alongwith the suit he filed an application for temporary injunction restraining the respondents from interfering in the possession of the disputed property and also from alienating the same.
2. The learned Civil Judge, Rahimyar Khan, dismissed the application on 15-5-1989. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the trial Court was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Rahimyar Khan on 19-2-1991. Hence this revision. Possession of the disputed property; that the sale- deed was executed mala fide in order to deprive the legal heirs of their shares; that the trial Court has wrongly declared respondent No,1 as bona fide purchaser of the property; that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the petitioner; that in case of further alienating of the property, the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss.
4. I have considered the matter carefully. I find that both the Courts below after applying their conscious minds have concurrently found that one of the essentials for the grant of temporary injunction Rs,. Prima facie case does not exist in favour of the petitioner. This being the position, the Courts below could not have granted temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner merely on the strength of his possession on the disputed property. It is well settled that before temporary injunction under Order 39 of Rules 1 and 2 under section 151, C.P.C. Is granted, the Courts have to see as to whether or not the three essentials for grant of temporary injunction Rs,. Prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss do exist in favour of the petitioner. If one of the essentials is found missing then the Court would be justified in declining the prayer for the grant of temporary injunction. The petitioner has challenged the transaction of sale and the sale-deed executed by his real mother in favour of his another son. The petitioner cannot claim injunction for restraining further alienation of the property, as a matter of right. The impugned orders are neither illegal nor perverse. I do not see any legal infirmity in the impugned orders. The Courts below have appreciated the question of grant/refusal of temporary injunction in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the superior Courts. The submissions made by the learned counsel do not make out a case for interference in exercise of the revisional powers of this Court with the well- reasoned orders.
5. For what has been stated above, this petition is dismissed in limine.