KHALID PAUL KHWAJA, J.- By this order I propose to dispose of Civil Revision No.l322-D of 1989.
1. The relevant facts which gave rise to the present revision petition are that Muhammad Nazim, petitioner instituted a suit against Muhammad Akbar, respondent for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 1.10.1986. He asserted that the respondent had agreed to sell to him property No E-1/8-104-A Model Town, Lahore for a price of Rs.97451/- but later on had refused to execute a sale deed in his favour. Alongwith the suit the petitioner moved an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC to restrain the respondent from alienating or selling the suit property to any other person.
2. The suit as well as the aforementioned application for temporary injunction were opposed by the respondent.
3. On 23.2.1989 the learned Civil Judge, who was seized of the suit, dismissed the application for temporary injunction and rejected the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC holding that proper court fee had not been paid by the .Petitioner. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner went up in appeal. The learned lower appellate court vide judgment dated 25.4.1989 set aside the order of the learned trial court pertaining to the rejection of plaint and remanded the case back to the said court with the direction to afford an opportunity to the petitioner to make up the deficiency in court fee. However, the petitioner's appeal with regard to the dismissal of his application for temporary injunction was dismissed.
4. The petitioner, being not satisfied with the said order of the learned lower appellate court, has come up in revision.
5. I have heard the parties' learned counsel and have also gone through the material available on record.
6. During the pendency of the revision petition one Salahud Din made an application before this court under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC for being impleaded as a party. His contention was that Muhammad Akbar respondent had sold the property in dispute to him vide sale deed dated 26.2.1989 registered on 26.4.1989. Later on his learned counsel withdrew the said application as he intended to make similar application before the learned trial court. An attested copy of the aforesaid sale deed is on record. It means that the respondent has already alienated/sold the property in dispute and thus the petitioner's application for temporary injunction has become infructuous. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged before this court that the subsequent transferee be directed not to get his name incorporated in the official record i.e the record of the Model Town Society. I am afraid this order cannot be issued at this stage in this petition because the transferee namely Salahud Din Butt is not a party to the present petition. The petitioner may, if so advised, seek remedy in the trial court where the suit is pending. Mr.Javaid Shaukat Malik, the learned counsel for the respondent, who also represents Salahud Din Butt aforesaid, assures that in the meantime the property in question would not be further alienated.
7. In view of the above discussion the revision petition is dismissed as having become infructuous.
The parties however, are directed to bear their own costs.