1. ' C.MA. No, 1162/1991 is an application under section 151, C.P.C. Filed by defendants Nos.14 to 22 praying that the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed against them.
2. ' The facts forming the background of this application are that an application for interim injunction under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with section 151, C.P.C. (C.MA. No,3856/1989) was filed by the plaintiff in the present suit. By order dated 27-11-1990 I dismissed the said application as I came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had no prima facie case against defendants Nos.14 to 22, because there was nothing to show that the Agreement of Sale was executed by defendants Nos.14 to 22 or that they had agreed to sell the land in had received the consideration. The suit against defendants Nos.1 to 13 was simultaneously decreed on their admission by the same order.
3. ' A preliminary issue was also framed by my learned brother Mr. Justice Abdul Rahim Kazi as follows:- "What is the effect of the orders passed by this Court on 17-12-1990?"
4. ' I have heard Mr. Khalil-ur-Rahman Advocate for defendants Nos. 14 to 22 and Mr. Abdul Latif A.
5. Shakoor Advocate for the plaintiff. I have also heard Mr. Abrar Hassan Advocate for defendants Nos.
6. 1 to 13.
7. ' The contention of Mr. Khalil-ur-Rahman is that since this Court has held in its above-mentioned order that the plaintiff has no prima facie case against defendants Nos.14 to 22, because there was nothing to show that the agreement of sale was executed by defendants Nos.14 to 22 or they had agreed to sell the land to the plaintiff or had received consideration from them therefore, the Court dismissed, the application againt defendants Nos.14 to 22, hence it is now established that the plaintiff had no cause of action against them. Therefore the Court should also dismiss the suit against defendants Nos. 14 to 22.
8. I am unable to accept the contention of Mr.Khalil-ur-Rahman. The findings as to prima facie, case etc. Given in an order on an application for interim injunction are of tentative nature. A suit cannot be disposed off on the basis of these findings. The suit against defendants Nos.1 to 13 was decreed not on the basis of these tentative findings, but it was decreed on the basis of admissions made by defendants Nos.1 to 13 under Order 12, R.6 read with Order 9, R.8, C.P.C. Hence the above findings given on the application for interim-injunction will not affect the plaintiff's suit. Reliance in this connection is placed in the following decisions:-
(1) Mst. Zainab Jan v. Abdul Rashid 1981 CLC 1012.
(2) Miss Suriya Bano v. Government of West Pakistan through Secretary. For Education, Lahore and another PLD 1973 Lah.
9. 572.
(3) Mst. Bilqecs and others v. Bhana PLD 1980 Lah.
10. 322.
(4) Din Muhammad and 6 others v. Mehar All Khan and 2 others PLD 1978 Kar.
11. 267.
12. (5)M. Moosa v. Mahmood and others PLD 1954 Sindh 70.
13. ' On the contrary it will be expected from the trial Judge to remain unbiased and unprejudiced by these findings. CMA No,1162/1991 is, therefore, dismissed and the preliminary issue is answered in the negative.