' Briefly stated facts of the case on the basis whereof the present Civil Revision has arisen are that the petitioners claimed themselves to be the owners of Plot No,89-C consisting of Khasra Nos.300 and 301 of Mauza Guru Mangat, Gulberg-III, Lahore, measuring 15 Marlas, which was allegedly transferred to them by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Lahore vide Transfer Order, dated 16- 12-1976. On the basis of this order, T.O.No,75972 was issued. The order of transfer and the deed of T.O. have been appended at pages 45 and 47 of the paper book. Subsequently, the dispute arose between the petitioners and the respondent with regard to the ownership of the plot in question, inasmuch as the respondent claimed that the Plot 89-C belongs to L.DA., therefore, the petitioners have no onwership or possessory rights in the plot in question. Construction raised by the petitioners was demolished by the respondent. Consequently, a suit for declaration of title as well as a decree for mandatory injunction was sought for the restoration of the possession of the plot in question. The suit was contested and on the basis of the statement of the learned counsel for the respondent, dated 14-2-1981, according to which, it was stated that in case the T.O. in question is genuine, the L.DA. will have no objection to treat the petitioners as owners, and will exempt the plot in the name of the petitioners, hence a decree was passed in terms of the aforementioned statement in favour of the petitioners. It is alleged by the petitioners that subsequently this decree was not complied with by the respondent, therefore, an application seeking execution of the said decree was filed in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Lahore, and the respondent filed objection petition in the said execution proceedings. Initially an order of attachment in relation to the plot in question was passed but this order was set aside in appeal filed by the respondent and the matter was remanded to the Executing Court after framing of the following issues:--
(1) Whether the P.T.D. in favour of the decree-holder concerning the property in decree is genuine?
OPA.
(2) Whether the decree-holder is willing and ready to pay the legal development charges to the L.D.A.? OPA ' with a direction that the matter shall be decided after recording evidence. The petitioners are stated to have completed their evidence, whereas the evidence of the respondent is yet to be recorded. According to the learned counsel, the next date of hearing for production of evidence of the respondent is 24-2-1992. It is alleged that during the pendency of these proceedings, a full Board of the Settlement Department met, of which an Officer of the L.DA. was also a member. The Board verified that T.O. No,75972 was genuine, and. a reverification report in this behalf was submitted, which has been appended with this revision petition as Annexure 'G'. When these proceedings were going on, the respondent treating the said plot as its own included the same in the auction list and advertised for its disposal through public auction. Consequently, an application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. for grant of interim stay restraining the respondent from putting the plot to auction during the pendency of the litigation in the Civil Court, was filed by the petitioners. This application was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge vide order dated 5-5-1991 holding that there is tampering with the record and that the petitioners do not have a prima facie case. Aggrieved of this order, the petitioners filed first appeal which has been dismissed by the learned District Judge vide order dated 20-6-1992. Learned District Judge has taken note of the fact that the Execution Petition has been filed after an unexplained delay and that there appear to be forgeries in the record which show that in fact the petitioners were allotted Plot No,87-C, but it has subsequently been forged and made to read as Plot No,89-C in various documents including T.O. Therefore, the learned District Judge held that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that the petitioners have a prima facie case. These two orders have been challenged in this Civil Revision.
2. Mr. Muhammad Rafiq Khan Chohan, learned counsel for the petitioners has agreed that the two learned Courts below have misdirected themselves to the real matter in controversy illegally holding that the petitioners do not have a prima facie case. It is contended that admittedly, a T.O. still exists in the name of the petitioners in relation to Plot No,89-C. This T.O. has been reverified by a full Board meeting of the Settlement Department which included an Officer of the L.D.A. as well and has been found as genuine. There is a decree passed in favour of the petitioners which still holds the field. The question which the Executing Court is now deciding is. as to whether the decree is to be implemented by the respondent was not after deciding the issues referred to above. Therefore, prima facie the petitioners have a strong case in their favour and at least is arguable. Learned counsel contends that in order to succeed in getting a relief of temporary injunction, the petitioners have not to prove the case beyond doubt. The only requirement is that they should have an important question to raise as held in case of Mian Muhammad Latif v. Province of West Pakistan through the Deputy Commissioner, Khairpur and another PLD 1970 SC 180 and if they can show that they have important factual and legal question to raise, the first necessary ingredient for grant of interim injunction stands established and this requirement stands established from the documents placed on the record. Learned counsel contends that the two Courts below have decided the stay application as if the main case is going to be decided and has discussed the merits of the case and, therefore, have exceeded in exercise of their jurisdiction while deciding stay application. It is contended by the learned counsel that an order which has not been passed by a Court in accordance with law is without lawful authority as held in Utility Stores Corporation of Pakistan Limited v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and others PLD 1987 SC 447 and, therefore, the orders passed by the two Courts below being without jurisdiction are liable to be struck down. Learned counsel has further contended that during the pendency of a dispute with regard to the title between the parties before a Court of competent jurisdiction, the respondent cannot be allowed to change the status quo by putting the plot to auction and to create complications. It is contended that the petitioners have already concluded the evidence and it is the respondent who has to lead evidence. If the respondent concludes evidence on 24-2-1993, the case could be decided within a day or two thereafter, hence, no irreparable loss will be suffered by the respondent if the stay order is issued till the decision of the proceedings before the learned trial Court and status quo is maintained whereas in case of refusal to grant stay, the petitioners shall suffer irreparable loss inasmuch as further complications and multiplicity of the proceedings shall occur. Reliance, in this behalf has been placed on case of Sardar Wali Muhammad v. Sardar Muhammad Iqbal Khan Mokal and 7 others PLD 1975 Lah.
492. Learned counsel contends that multiplicity of proceedings and creation of complications has been held by this Court to be a sufficient ground for issuance of a status quo order against the alienation during the pendency of a dispute of title, hence, according to the learned counsel, it is a fit case where the revision petition is accepted and the judgments of the Courts below are set aside and the petitioners are granted a stay order as prayed for till the decision of the matter by the learned Executing Court.
3. Malik A.R. Arshad, Adv.ocate, on behalf of the respondent has vehemently opposed this civil revision and has argued that the two learned Courts below having exercised their jurisdiction and discretion against the petitioners, this Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the matter, inasmuch as, the impugned orders are neither whimsical nor arbitrary. Learned counsel places reliance on case Shahzada Muhammad Um ar Beg v. Sultan Mahmood Khan and another PLD 1970 SC 139. It is further contended that the petitioners are dishonest litigants as there are patent forgeries on the face of the record and therefore they are not entitled to the grant of discretionary relief from by this Court. Reliance has been placed on case of Ghulam Rasul and others v.
Muhammad Anwar and others 1%9 SCMR 254. Elaborating his argument, learned counsel has taken me through the record which has been appended with this petition. He has pointed out that as is clear from the perusal of digit 9 at pages 45, 47, 48 and 51, it is apparent that digit 7 has been tampered with and has been made as digit 9. Therefore, in view of this clear tampering with the record, the petitioners are not entitled to the grant of temporary relief. It is further contended that as the petitioners are admittedly not in possession of the plot in question, the suit in the present form is not maintainable and as such the stay cannot be granted to them and that the execution petition is barred by time on the face of it, inasmuch as, it has been filed after an inordinate delay and this fact has been taken note by the learned District Judge while dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioners. It is further contended that LDA is suffering irreparable loss due to non-disposal of commercial plot worth five crores of rupees, hence, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
3. I have considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records. Admittedly, the transfer order still exists in the name of the petitioners. As per apparent record, number of the plot transferred to the petitioners is 89-C. This fact is also clear from the report of re-verification of T.O. which has been placed as Annexure `G' on this paper book. From the naked eye, it cannot be said that it is a case of forgery. At any rate, this is the controversy which is pending adjudication before the learned Executing Court and the parties are already at issue on this point. The petitioners have produced their evidence, whereas, the respondent is yet to lead evidence. Therefore, the learned Courts below should have avoided to go through these questions so deeply as the same is the subject-matter of the main controversy. I will also refrain from making final observation on this aspect of the matter lest merits of the case may not be prejudiced which are pending adjudication before the lower Court. From the record placed on this civil revision, which has been referred to even by the learned counsel for the respondent, I feel that the petitioners have important questions of fact and law to raise which are being determined by the learned Executing Court. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners do not have a prima facie case. The question of forgery, therefore, cannot be deeply gone into at this stage and as such the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent on this score is not of any avail and it cannot be said that the petitioners are proved to be the dishonest litigants and hence the law declared in case of Ghulam Rasul and others v. Muhammad Anwar and others 1969 SCM R 254 is not attracted to the facts and circumstances of this case. Having held that the petitioners have a prima facie case I am of the view that in case the plot is put to auction, the petitioners shall defmitely suffer an irreparable loss inasmuch as it will create further complications and will result in multiplicity of the proceedings. Placing reliance on case of Sardar Wall Muhammad v. Muhammad Iqbal Khan Mokal and 7 others PLD 1975 Lah. 492 I hold that it is a fit case where the status quo should be maintained during the pendency of the suit particularly when the case before the learned trial Court is almost at its fag end. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondent to the effect that the execution petition is barred by time is also not of any help at this stage to him inasmuch as, this question is also to be determined by the learned Executing Court. This Court should not pre-empt the jurisdiction of the learned trial Court who has to take decision on this question as well. Argument of the learned counsel for the respondent to the effect that the L.DA. will suffer a great loss inasmuch as the plot in question is worth of crores and if not allowed to be auctioned, the projects of great public importance shall suffer, is also of no consequence, inasmuch as, basic question is as to whether the plot in question belongs to the petitioners or the respondent. Therefore, in case the same is allowed to be put to an auction, the petitioners shall definitely suffer an irreparable loss and more inconvenience. Merely because they are not in possession of the plot in question is not a ground for holding that the suit is not maintainable inasmuch as, the relief of possession has also been asked for in the decreed suit. It has been held in case of Ahmad Din v. Muhammad Shafi and others PLD 1971 SC 762 that a declaratory suit on the basis of a title cannot be dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff is not in possession of the disputed property. Proper course in such a case would be to allow the petitioner to amend the plaint and to ask for possession. Even otherwise, the question of possession in this case is not of much relevancy inasmuch as, it is a vacant plot and possession shall follow the title.
Admittedly, construction was raised by the petitioners over the plot in question which has been demolished by the respondent. Therefore, absence of possession is not at all relevant factor to decide application for stay order. The fact remains that a dispute regarding title of the plot in question is pending adjudication before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction and therefore, it is necessary that status quo order is maintained during the B pendency thereof.
In view of the above, I accept this civil revision, set aside the impugned orders passed by the two learned Courts below and direct that the plot in question shall not be auctioned till the final decision of the proceedings pending before the learned trial Court and status quo shall be maintained. The petitioners shall also not raise any construction over the plot in question during the interregnum. In view of the fact that allegedly plot in question is worth crore of rupees, it is necessary that the proceedings are decided expeditiously. Therefore, a direction is issued that the learned Civil Judge before whom the execution proceedings are pending shall decide the execution petition on or before 15-3-1993. Information with regard to the decision of the execution proceedings shall immediately be given to the Deputy Registrar (J) of this Court. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.