1. ' In this suit the plaintiff claiming to have been allocated shop No,23-A on the ground floor of Panorama Centre have sought declaration of ownership and a declaration to the effect that Anexures TU and W dated 16-9-1982, 9-2-1977 and 24-10-1982 are forged. They have prayed for a direction against the defendant No,1 to execute a title deed in respect of the shop premises allocated to them. Besides the above reliefs the plaintiffs have prayed for a decree for Rs,51,60,000 as damages with interest of 14% per annum.
2. ' Defendants in the written statement have pleaded that the shop premises were rented out to the plaintiffs on a monthly rental of Rs,274 which were surrendered and possession handed over to them vide Compromise Deed/Settlement executed between the parties on 16-9-1982.
3. ' On an injunction application seeking to restrain defendant No,5 from transferring, selling, and alienating shop No,23-A, the counsel for defendant No,5 had given an undertaking before the Court on 6-8-1989 to the effect that during the pendency of the suit without prejudice to the pleas taken by the defendants in the written statement defendant No,5 shall not sell, transfer or alienate in any manner the portion of the Panorama Centre comprising of 274 square feet claimed by the plaintiffs.
4. ' By the instant application, the plaintiffs seek a fresh injunction against the defendants restraining them from wasting, damaging, alienating or disposing of the shop premises measuring 274 square feet till the decision of the suit. By the second application, the plaintiffs have prayed for attachment of the properties of the defendants Nos.1 to 5 and detention of defendants Nos.2 to 4 in prison for disobeying the order passed by this Court on 6-8-1989.
5. ' Defendants have filed counter-affidavits to both the applications while the plaintiffs have filed affidvits-in-rejoinder controverting the pleas taken by the defendants.
6. ' In pursuance of the order passed by this Court dated 15-12-1993 Official Assignee was appointed as Commissioner to inspect the suit property who inspected the same on 18-12-1993 accompanied by Mr. Muhammad Akhtar Khan, Advocate for the plaintiffs and Attorney for the plaintiffs. It was pointed out to the Commissioner/Official Assignee that shop No, 23-A appeared to have been demolished and removed. Since this inspection was carried out in absence of the representative of the plaintiffs, this Court passed another order dated 6-2-1994 directing the Official Assignee to inspect the site afresh and submit his report accordingly. Pursuant to this order on 24-2-1994 the Official Assignee inspected the premises when Mr. G.M. Mirza, Attorney of defendant No,5 pointed out to him a piece of land which according to him was shop No,23-A but according to the Attorney for plaintiffs this piece of land was situated 90 feet away from the space of the shop premises claimed by the plaintiffs.
7. I have heard teamed counsel for the parties and perused both the reports of the Official Assignee.
8. It would appear that there is a dispute as to the title of the plaintiffs as well as the identity of the shop premises allocated to them. It would further appear that the plaintiffs besides seeking the relief on declaration and injunction have also prayed. For a money decree by way of damages.
9. These disputed questions cannot be sorted out merely upon hearing the arguments or consideration of the affidavits and counter-affidavits. Suffice to say the defendants have left upon a piece of land as undertaken by defendant No,5 before this Court. Prima fade, therefore there is no violation of the undertaking given by this defendant as incorporated in the order dated 6-8-1989.
10. ' Since the plaintiffs have yet to establish their title to the shop premises in my view they are not entitled to temporary injunction asked for at the moment. Both the applications are, therefore, rejected.
11. Applications rejected.