1. ' This Revision Application under section 115, Civil Procedure Code is the result of a dispute for possession of a plot bearing Survey Nos.525 and 185 situated in Deh Gujro, Taluka/District Karachi (East). According to the minutes dated 13th March, 1983 of the meeting held by the Commissioner, Karachi, this plot was earmarked for using it as a parking place for the trucks in that area. During that meeting it appears that Karachi Trucks Owners' Association, Respondent No.1 herein, undertook to level the plot to make it possible for the use of parking of trucks. Out of the two Survey Nos.
2. Survey No.185 happens to be unutilized evacuee property which on repeal of Evacuee Laws vested with the Board of Revenue. It appears that these plots were subsequently leased out to different persons by the Board of Revenue, Government of Sindh, who entered into certain transactions with other parties which resulted in dispute over the possession of the plot in question.
3. ' M/s. Karachi Trucks Owners Association filed a civil suit seeking permanent injunction against the applicant and other respondents No.2 to 8 in this Revision Application. Alongwith the Plaintiff Respondent No.1 filed an Application under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2, Civil Procedure Code which was contested by the present Applicants. The trial Judge rejected the Application mainly on the ground that prima facie case for grant of injunction was not made out by the Plaintiff.
4. ' The respondent No.1, the Plaintiff in the suit, being aggrieved by the order of the Civil Court rejecting their application under Order XXXIX, rule 1 and 2, Civil Procedure Code filed an Appeal.
5. Their Appeal (Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.50/91) was ultimately decided by Ist Additional District Judge, Karachi (West) on 25-11-1991. The Appellate Court accepted the. Appeal. Being aggrieved by the order passed in Appeal the present Applicants have filed this Application under section 115, Civil Procedure Code.
6. ' Mr. Raja M. Irshad, Advocate for the applicants, mainly contended that respondent No.1 has no right, title or interest over the plot in question and admittedly as on today they arc not in physical possession of the plot. The work ofmulti-storey building on that plot has sufficiently. progressed and grant of injunction will operate harshly on the Applicants. According to him even a prima facie case is not made out by Respondent for grant of injunction.
7. ' Mr. Sabir Hussain Kizilbash, Advocate appearing for K.D.A., Respondent No.5 herein, contended that the plot in question vests in KDA on the basis of Notification for KDA Scheme No.24 and subsequent Notification whereby the KDA was put in possession of the land in dispute. He contests the very right of the Board of Revenue to transfer this land to any one else.
8. ' Mr. K.M. Nadeem, Assistant Advocate-General, Sindh, had informed the Court that in fact there is another suit pending between Government of Pakistan and Government of Sindh over the same land as Pakistan Railways are claiming this land to be theirs.
9. ' Mirza Saeed Baig, Advocate appearing for respondent No.1, states that respondent No.1 were in possession of the plot in dispute and it was only after the Civil Court passed an order of maintaining status quo that they were prevented from parking the trucks by the Applicants with the assistance of Station House Officer, respondent No.6 herein, and that they have moved an application for contempt against them which is pending before the Trial Judge and the Appellate Court.
10. ' In view of the facts stated above and in any case when Respondent No.1 has neither any right, title or interest over the plot and they are not in possession thereof prima facie they will not be entitled to grant of injunction. On this short point I am inclined to set aside the order of the Appellate Court leaving the present parties and other parties to contest the suit on merits and on the basis of evidence to be produced by them.
11. ' This Revision Application is allowed and order impugned in the application is set aside. This judgment shall not, however, affect the contempt proceeding before the two Courts below in any manner and trial Judge shall expeditiously within a period of 6 months from today dispose of the suit before him.