' ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order dated 5-11- 1991 of the High Court.
2. The facts, in brief are, that the petitioner instituted a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction against the defendants that they should not undertake any type of construction on the disputed land as the sales are without the consent of the petitioner. An application for interim injunction was also made. The learned trial Judge refused to grant the interim injunction to the petitioner.
However, it was observed that the defendants will be doing the construction work at their own risk and they shall not demand any compensation if the suit of the plaintiff is decreed against them.
The petitioner challenged this order in appeal before the Additional District Judge who accepted the appeal and directed that status quo be maintained till the disposal of the appeal. This order was challenged by the defendants Nos.2 to 7 in the High Court in a Revision Petition which was disposed of by the impugned judgment.
3. In para. 6 of the High Court's judgment, it has been recorded as follows:- "As the evidence has been concluded in the case as per statement of the learned counsel for the respondent and now a judgment is to be passed by the learned trial Court and the construction of an area of one marla is now complete, therefore, in facts and circumstances of the case, the judgment dated 11-6-1990 of the learned Additional District Judge, Mansehra is set aside and the order dated 25-1-1990 of the learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Mansehra is restored and this petition is disposed of accordingly."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the property is joint and the vendees are constructing shops on the disputed land as such the interest of the petitioner would be adversely affected. The trial Judge has taken care of the interest of the petitioner and specifically stated that the defendants are raising construction at their own risk. The order impugned in this petition is of temporary nature and the suit is still pending which is at the final stage. The result of the suit would not affect the interest of the petitioner in view of the direction made by the trial Court. The respondents are further directed that if they had constructed the shops they should deposit the rent of the shops in the trial Court and the trial Court after final disposal of the suit would also make such order in respect of the rent so deposited by the respondents.
5. The petition is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.