1. ' This revision is against the judgment dated 5-9-1991 passed by the learned District Judge, Sukkur in Civil Misc. A. No,21/91 whereby he has set aside the order of the 1st Senior Civil Judge, Sukkur granting interim injunction against the respondents/defendants in Suit No,43/90, and has dismissed the injunction application.
2. ' The facts giving rise this revision, are that applicant/plaintiff, M/s. Pakistan State Oil Limited, has filed Civil Suit in the Court of 1st Senior Civil Judge, Sukkur for declaration and perpetual injunction, stating therein that they are operating a petrol pump at Minara Road, Sukkur, under the dealership of one Abdul Qayum Respondent No,1. Defendnat No,1 M/s. Pakistan Burmah-Shell Limited obtained permission for installing of petrol pump at Makhdoom Jumani Road, Sukkur from the Government of Pakistan vide letter dated 14-1-1990, and the respondent/defendant granted dealership of the said petrol pump to the respondent/defendants No,2 Sadaruddin under the trade name of Capri Gas Station, Sukkur. Defendants/respondents in collusion with the other, and in order to frustrate the bar imposed by the Government of Pakistan to the effect that an outlet (petrol pump) should not be opened within 2 K.M. On the same road, fraudulently showed the site of the proposed out-let bearing City Survey No,C-591/18 as located at Makhdoom Jumani Road, Sukkur, whereas the fact is that the above city survey number is located at Minara Road, Sukkur. The distance between the plaintiffs/applicant's petrol pump at Minara Road, Sukkur, and the proposed petrol pump sanctioned, in favour of respondent No,1 at Makhdoom Jumani Road, Sukkur, is only 0.9 K.M. And is within the prohibited distance of 2 K.M. They also stated that respondents/defendants have not obtained storage licence from the Inspector of Explosives, Government of Pakistan, Karachi. It was also stated that the applicant/plaintiff has an exclusive right to operate this petrol pump at Minara Road, Sukkur. It was also stated in the plaint that no-objection certificate had not been obtained from the District Magistrate by the respondents/defendants.
3. ' Alongwith the plaint, the applicant/plaintiff had also moved an application u/o 39 rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. Seeking to restrain respondents/defendants, during the pendency of the suit, from installing MS/I-LSD out-let over CS No,C-581/18, Makhdoom Jumani Road, and from selling petroleum products there.
4. ' Respondents/defendants resisted the suit and denied the averments made in the plaint of the applicant/plaintiff including change of location of the site for the proposed petrol pump. It was submitted that the question of bar of 2 K.M. Does not arise in their case, as petrol pump has been installed at the sanctioned site, and that the licence of storage has also been obtained from the competent authority, vide letter dated 24-3-1990. It was asserted that all the formalities, as required under the law, have been complied with. It was also pleaded that the applicant/plaintiff had no locus standi to file the suit as they have no cause of action to file the suit and that the respondent's company has been set up to file this suit.
5. ' I have heard counsel for the parties.
6. ' Mr. Abdul Ghafoor Bhurgari, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, has submitted that this revision is not maintainable because all the documents, as required under proviso to section 115, C.P.C. Have not been produced. In support of his contention, he has referred Federation of Pakistan Railways v. Muhammad Sadiq 1987 CLC 1631. In this authority it has been held:-- "I agree with learned counsel for the respondent that the civil revision is not properly constituted because it is not accompanied by copies of the exhibited documents."
7. ' The relevant proviso to section 115(1) reads as under:-- "Provided that, where a person makes an application under this subsection, he shall in support of such application, furnish copies of the pleadings, documents and order of the subordinate Court and the High Court shall, except for reasons to be recorded, dispose of such application without calling for the record of the subordinate Court."
8. ' It has been pointed that the order of the trial Court and the documents of purchase of petrol, receipts of payment of octroi tax and receipts of sale of petrol which have been referred by the learned District Judge, in his judgment, and which prove that the petrol pump A of the respondent was functioning at that time, have not been produced.
9. ' Mr. A.M. Mubeen, learned counsel for the applicant has stated that production of these documents is not mandatory. This contention is not acceptable because in the relevant proviso, which I have referred to above, the word 'shall' has been used for the production of these documents alongwith the revision application.
10. ' In view of what I have said above, I have concluded that this revision application has not been properly constituted under the relevant requirements of proviso to subsection (1) of section 115, C.P.C. I, therefore, dismiss this revision application without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.