' The revision petition is directed against an order, dated 2-1-1993, whereby learned Additional District Judge, Sahiwal, Ch. Sarfraz Ahmad Tarar, modified a conditional injunction order, passed in favour of the plaintiff, on 26-4-1989, by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Layyah, Mr. Fayyaz Ahmad Bhutta.
2. Muhammad Hussain on 21-9-1988 filed a suit for specific performance of an alleged agreement of sale, dated 22-1-1988, whereby Fateh Muhammad defendant No,1 had, through his general attorney, Hassan Muhammad, defendant No,2, agreed to sell his land in dispute to the plaintiff, for a consideration of two lac rupees, out of which, an amount of Rs,1,50,000, the vendee claimed to have paid to the vendor and the remaining Rs,50,000 had to be paid at the time of registration of the sale-deed. Fateh Muhammad had been allotted this land under the Settlement Scheme and he is stated to have paid the entire dues and fulfilled all the conditions, in the year 1983, and thus become its absolute owner, although rights of proprietorship had not formally been conferred on him, as yet. For management of the land and attending to the formalities required for transition of transfer of its ownership from the Government to Fateh Muhammad, and from the latter to Muhammad Hussain plaintiff, Hassan Din had been appointed on 1-10-1980 as his general attorney by Muhammad Hussain, both being brothers. It is a matter of common observation and experience that such arrangements are generally stipulated and carried in transactions of this kind. It cannot, at the same time, also, be denied that when two real brothers or relatives are involved, fraud may well be played upon the actual owner of property. In the instant case, power of attorney stated to have been executed by Fateh Muhammad in favour of Hassan Din had been cancelled on 13-7- 1988.
3. The alleged agreement of sale, however, is claimed by Muhammad Hussain plaintiff to have been executed on 12-1-1988. There is a very important circumstance, which furnishes an indication that Muhammad Hussain might be a genuine purchaser, as undeniably he is in possession of the land. Fateh Muhammad, original allottee/owner of the land, died during pendency of these proceedings and was replaced by his legal heirs, Muhammad Rasheed etc. Petitioners, before this Court. The learned counsel appearing for them maintains that Muhammad Hassan plaintiff- respondent had actually been put in possession of the land as a tenant and not as transferee or vendee. These and other important aspects of the case, it will not be denied, will be determined in trial, and it would be difficult to jump to any conclusion, at this early stage, and to say with certainty as to which one of the two rival claims represents reality.
4. The learned Civil Judge, it appears, had therefore exercised care and realizing that the original owner, and, on his demise, his legal heirs, might not continue to be defrauded and deprived of fruits of their property he deemed it proper to impose a condition that the plaintiff, who claimed to be the lawful purchaser of the property, for a valuable consideration, must part with proprietor's share in the land, as if he (the plaintiff) was cultivating it as a tenant under the owner, and this arrangement ought to enure, so long as the controversy is not finally settled.
5. Muhammad Hussain plaintiff felt aggrieved and filed an appeal, that was dismissed, on 23-7- 1990 by learned Additional District Judge, Sahiwal, Mehr Salabat Khan, holding it to be time-barred.
The plaintiff came up in revision to this Court, and my learned brother, Mr. Muhammad Munir Khan, J. (as he then was) remanded the appeal to the District Court, with a direction that the application under section 5, Limitation Act, accompanying the appeal, be disposed of on scrutinizing the record of the copying agency. The learned Additional District Judge, thereupon, examined the copyist and came to the conclusion that at fault for the apparent delay in filing the appeal was not Muhammad Hussain plaintiff. His appeal was allowed on 2-1-1993 by the learned Additional District Judge, Sahiwal, Ch. Sarfraz Ahmad Tarar, who waived the condition imposed on the plaintiff requiring him to pass on to defendant No,1 the proprietor's share in the produce of the land. It is against this order that the present revision petition has been preferred.
6. Plaintiff/respondent No,1 maintains that the revision is time-barred. With the revision petition has also been submitted an application under section 5 Limitation Act. Actually the petition had been filed at the Principal Seat on 7-2-1993. By an order made on 11-7-1993, my Lord the Chief Justice returned the revision petition to the petitioners in order to enable them to file it before the appropriate Bench. Initially the petitioners had also made a miscellaneous application to the Hon'ble Chief Justice for entertainment of the civil revision at the Principal Seat. The order, dated 7- 2-1993, passed by the Hon'ble Senior Puisne Judge, in absence of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, indicates that some order of general or specific nature had also been made by his Lordship the Chief Justice. Copy of that order has not been placed before me. If this development is taken due notice of, the civil revision presented here at Multan on 25-7-1993 would not appear to be barred by the law of limitation.
7. In so far as merits of this petition are concerned, I have an honest feeling that the plaintiff- respondent No,1, having admittedly been in cultivating possession of the land, over quite a few years, it would be in fitness of things that his possession be preserved. Since he may ultimately emerge to be lawful transferee, as bona fide purchaser of the land, and he may be able to establish execution of the agreement of sale dated 22-1-1988, it will not be proper to put any fetters on him. At the same time, however, the interests of the other side may also be taken care of. Stance of the original owner, Fateh Muhammad, defendant No,1, or that of his legal heirs, petitioners herein may also turn out to be true, as is averred by them, if they succeed in proving that plea. In that event, they would be hit very hard, if they are deprived of their property and its income over an indefinite period. The best course, therefore, is that a direction is issued to the trial Court to proceed with the case by giving adjournments of shortest possible duration and dispose it of finally within a maximum period of six months. I order accordingly. This direction is not to be lightly taken and the matter is not to be dealt with in routine. It must be complied with in letter and spirit.
8. Finding no real fault with the order impugned herein, I would uphold it. The revision petition has not much of force, and is hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs. Although the land is situate in Layyah District, the case is said to have been transferred to Sahiwal, by an order of the High Court, probably on the request of defendant No,1 in the suit. The records shall therefore be remitted without delay to the learned District Judge, Sahiwal, who shall entrust the case to a Court of competent jurisdiction, so that the further progress in the proceedings is not stranded over any length of period. The parties, shall appear before the District Judge on 8-11-1993.