1. This is a Civil Revision Application filed by the applicant against the impugned order, dated 14-10- 1985 passed by the learned II-Additional District Judge, Tharparkar at Mirpur Khas by which the learned Judge dismissed the application of the applicant filed under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C.
2. For granting temporary injunction.
3. Briefly the facts of the case are that the respondent filed Rent Application on 11-2-1979 against the applicant on the ground of default in the payment of rent under section 13(ii) (1) of the Sindh Rented Restriction Ordinance, 1959, for their ejectment from the suit property known as premises Nos. l and 2 Government Primary Saeedpur School, Umerkot and Government Nationalised Sanskirt Vidayalay Umerkot in the Court of Rent Controller and II---Senior Civil Judge, Mirpur Khas.
4. On 29-5-1979 the learned Rent Controller, Mirpur Khas passed an order directing the applicants to hand over the vacant possession of the aforesaid premises within four months of the passing of the said order due to failure of the applicant to file their written statements.
5. On 9-6-1979, the applicant filed Appeal No.45 of 1979 against the aforesaid order before the learned District Judge, Tharparkar, which was transferred to the learned I-Additional District Judge, Tharparkar, who dismissed the aforesaid Appeal No.45 of 1979 on 2-6-1983, vide its judgment thereby maintaining the order of the ejectment of the applicant. The applicants challenged the order of the learned Rent Controller and Appellate Authority in Civil Suit No.97 of 1984.
6. I have heard the arguments of both the learned Advocates for the parties and has perused the old record of this litigation.
7. It appears that this is a second round of litigation between the parties, firstly, the rent application filed against the applicant was allowed. Appeal was also dismissed and the matter was finally decided by the Honourable High Court in F.R.A. No. 170 of 1984. It would be necessary to reproduce the order passed by the Honourable Judge of the High Court Mr. Justice Saeed-uz-Zaman Siddiqui (as he then was) as under:--- "This appeal is directed against the order of Rent Controller refusing the stay of execution proceedings. The stay was applied before the Rent Controller by the appellant on the ground that the appellant had instituted a civil suit challenging the order of Rent Controller and claiming that the property belongs to the Government. None of these grounds were sufficient for stay of execution as the ejectment case was decided by the Rent Controller on merits although ex parte.
8. There is no substance in the appeal, which is dismissed summarily."
9. The contention of Mr. Abdul Latif Ansari the learned Assistant Advocate-General, Sindh appearing for the applicant is that the Rent Application filed against the educational institution was not maintainable as there did not exist relationship, of the landlord and the tenant and further that the disputed property was taken over by the Government of Sindh vide notification under MLR 118 at the time of nationalisation of schools hence no proceedings should be initiated.
10. On the other hand Mr. Muhammad Ismail Memon learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent in this matter has argued that the ejectment order has been passed in favour of the respondent in the year 1979 against which the applicant filed an appeal which was also dismissed and thereafter a declaratory suit was filed by the applicant in which an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. Was also filed which was dismissed by the two Courts below as such there are concurrent findings against the appellant.
11. I have heard the arguments of the learned Advocates and has perused the record of this case. The record shows that application was also filed before the learned Senior Civil Judge for stay of the execution of ejectment order which was dismissed when the matter went up .To the High Court where stay of the execution of ejectment order was also dismissed vide order dated 25-11-1984.
12. The applicant chose to file a civil suit for declaration. While discussing the application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. The learned III Additional District Judge; Mirpur Khas was of the view that the present suit has been filed just to defeat the ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller as such the applicants were not entitled to the grant of injunction alone on this point. In this litigation as well as in the previous litigation which was in the shape of rent application all these points raised by Mr. Ansari the learned Assistant A.-G. Have been fully discussed. I do not find any illegality committed in the impugned order, dated 14-10-1985 by which an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. Was dismissed hence this revision application has got no merits which is accordingly dismissed.