' Zubair Ahmed etc. Brought a suit for declaration against Haji Shah Alam etc. In which a temporary injunction was confirmed in the trial Court on 25-1-1990 to the effect that no alienation of the suit land would be made till the decision of the suit. Meanwhile a portion of the property was acquired by the Peshawar Development Authority qua which the trial Court issued temporary injunction on 17-1-1993. Subsequently the defendants filed an application that the order, dated 17-1-1993 be withdrawn. The learned Civil Judge Peshawar vide his order, dated 4-12-1993 rejected the application and maintained the order, dated 17-1-1993. Against this the appeal also failed before learned Additional District Judge, Peshawar on 3-10-1994 and hence this revision.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners while referring to section 11 of Civil Laws (Reforms) Act, 1994 argued that the temporary injunction issued by the trial Court had ceased to exist because six months had expired after the issuance thereof. Although the impugned injunction was issued much prior to the enforcement of the above Act XIV of 1994 yet even if it is considered to be retrospective the trial Court has per Rule 2-B added in Order 39 of the C.P.C. Had extended the same on 4-12-1993 after hearing the parties again and after recording reasons therefor.
3. The instant suit is brought with a solid background that sale on behalf of Ghulam Muhammad was not legally valid and his legal heirs were not impleaded in the pre-emption suit despite the fact that he was dead in the year 1979 and further that Ghulam Muhammad had given no Vakalatnama under his signature. In the circumstances the lower Courts have rightly appreciated that the title derived through mutation remains yet to be proved by the defendants. It is a money matter where it is said that one of the defendants has already drawn an amount of Rupees five lacs and the remaining amount is even till this date not deposited in Court despite the fact that Peshawar Development Authority and Muslim Commercial Bank have stood impleaded.
4. In the circumstances, the Courts below have not committed such material irregularity which should call for interference of this Court. The revision petition is hereby dismissed with the remarks that the defendants, if allowed under the law, can bring a fresh application under Rule (2-B) of Order 39, C.P.C. As amended by Act XIV of 1994, before the trial Court. Parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.