MIAN NAZIR AKHTAR, J. This revision petition arises out of a suit for declaration with consequential relief filed by the petitioner on 22.7.1987 m the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Faisalabad. Along with the plaint, the petitioner filed an application for grant of temporary injunction, which was dismissed by the trial Court vide the order dated 4.10.1987. The petitioner's appeal was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad, vide the order dated 8.4.1990.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Rahim Bakhsh, respondent No.3, who has appeared in person. No one has appeared on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2, who are ordered to be proceeded against ex parte.
3. From the material placed on the record, prima facie, it appears that the petitioner is in cultivating possession of the disputed land except killas No.19 and 22 of square No.7, which are in possession of one Farzand, who is a tenant under the petitioner. The land was originally allotted to the petitioner under Five Years Cultivation Scheme with effect from Kharif 1967. He is recorded as a lease holder in the jamanband is pertaining to the years 1972-73 and 1976-77. The petitioner claimed that he was entitled to the grant of proprietary rights under the Statement of Conditions issued on 3.9.1979 by the Provincial Government, respondent No. 1 herein. However, his application for grant of proprietary rights was dismissed in his absence by the Collector vide the order dated 28.11.1985. Respondent No.3 is an allottee under the Ejected Tenants Scheme and can get possession of land only after the petitioner is legally eliminated from the field. The petitioner appears to have prima facie case in his favour. The balance of convenience is also in his favour. If ejected at this stage, the petitioner shall suffer an irreparable loss. I, therefore, allow this revision petition, set aside the impugned orders of the Courts below and direct that the petitioner shall not bt dispossessed during the pendency of the suit.
4. Keeping in view the fact that respondent No.3, an allottee under the Ejected Tenant Scheme, is out of possession, I feel it will be appropriate if the suit is decided within a short time. I, therefore, direct the trial Court to decide the sub expeditiously within a period of one year. The revision petition is allowed with the above direction.