' On 12-1-1981, Muhammad Ali and others, respondents, filed suit for declaration to the effect that they were owner in occupation of the suit property. Alongwith the suit they filed application for grant of temporary injunction restraining the defendants/petitioners from interfering with their possession of the suit property and also from alienating the same in any manner, till the decision of the suit. The application was allowed on 7-3-1981. The appeal filed by the petitioners/defendants was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Sargodha on 25-2-1982, hence this revision.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since, according to the entry in Revenue Record, the Provincial Government is the owner of the suit property, therefore, the plaintiffs/respondents had no prima facie case in their favour; that under section 36 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, and also under section 56 of the Specific Relief Act, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit; that since Hasan Muhammad respondent No,2 is in the physical possession of the suit property, therefore, the temporary injunction as prayed for could not have been granted; that the suit was premature; that the respondent had no locus standi to file suit; that the Courts below have not properly appreciated the documentary evidence placed on record and as such three essentials for grant of temporary injunctions do not exist in favour of the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned order.
3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. I find that after having applied their conscious mind to the relevant material on record, the Courts below have concurrently found that three essentials for grant of temporary injunctions do exist in favour of the respondent, that the question of the jurisdiction and maintainability of the suit of the respondent can properly be considered and decided at trial after framing issues and that it would be premature for this Court to hold that the suit filed by the respondents was not maintainable or the trial Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the same. I do not see any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional defect.
' For what has been said above, there being no justification, the revision is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
4. This revision was filed in the year 1982. Learned counsel for the parties are not in a position to tell whether the main suit has been decided or not. If the main suit has not been decided by the trial Court, so far, it will decide the same within 3 months from today under intimation to the Deputy Registrar (J) of this Court.