AJMAL MIAN, J.---This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 18-8-1993 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Sind in High Court Appeal No.35 of 1992, filed by the present petitioners against the order dated 15-2-1993 passed by a learned Single Judge in Suit No.802 of 1991, declining ad interim injunction to the petitioners, dismissing the above High Court Appeal and maintaining the aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge.
2. The brief facts are that the petitioner filed a suit for her own behalf and on behalf of her to minor sons, originally against her husband (respondent No. l) but subsequently respondent No. 2 was also impleaded, for declaration and permanent injunction on the basis of the averment that she was married to respondent No. l on 1-5-1980. Out of the above wedlock, to children, namely, petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 were born. It was further averred that petitioner No. l and respondent No. l decided to build a house for themselves and for their children and consequently construction of the same was started on Plot No.79/< in Block No.2, P.E.C.H.S. Karachi, and that as respondent No. l did not have sufficient money , petitioner No. 1 obtained money from her father and brother from the to the to continue with the construction work and spent the same on the construction of the house. It was also averred that petitioner No.1 and respondent No.1 were subsequently separated and that petitioner No.1 had contributed more than 1/3rd towards the construction of the house, respondent No.1 was benamindar holder of the house in question. She claimed declaration to the effect that respondent No.1 was holding the house in trust as benamidar for the plaintiffs. In the alternative, she sought declaration that she was co--owner of the house to the extent of 1/2 share.
Alongwith the above suit, an application for temporary injunction was filed, which was resisted by respondent No. 1. The learned Single Judge, by his above detailed order dated 15-2-1993. Declined the above application. Thereupon, the petitioners filed the above High Court Appeal, which also failed. Hence, they have filed the present petition for leave to appeal.
3. In support of the above petition, Mr. Qamarul Islam Abbas, learned ASC appearing for the petitioners, has vehemently contended that the to Courts below failed to give due importance to the copies of the bank accounts which petitioner No. l had produced to show that she had withdrawn various amounts, which, according to her, were spent on the construction of the house.
4. It may be observed that the learned Single Judge tentatively held that there was no evidence to show that the money withdrawn from the bank accounts was used for the construction of the house. He also referred to the documents produced by respondent No. l indicating that the money was withdrawn by petitioner No. l in 1988 whereas the house was constructed between 1983 to 1985.
Respondent No. l also relied on Annexures D/7 and D/8 and the counter-affidavit indicating that petitioner No.Vs.-father had asserted the right to purchase the suit house by virtue of being immediate neighbour. The learned Single Judge, after considering the respective case, held that petitioner No .l failed to make out prima facie case. The above tentative assessment of the learned Judge in Chambers has been Maintained by the learned Judges of the Division Bench. It is wrong to urge that the to Courts below have not taken into consideration the bank statements produced by petitioner No. 1.
5. Since the to Courts have exercised discretion properly against the petitioners, no case for interference is made out. Leave is refused.