This petition under section 115, C.P.C arises out of a suit for specific performance/declaration filed by the petitioner against the respondent. In the said suit the petitioner had moved an application for the grant of temporary injunction which was allowed by the Trial Court. However, on appeal filed by the petitioner the application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Mianwali.
2. The main contention raised by the petitioner's learned counsel was as the order of the, learned District Judge was at variance with that of the Trial Court, this Court should interfere. I am afraid, there is no such principle which obliges this Court to interfere merely for the reason that the interim orders of the two Courts are at variance.
3. It was next argued by the learned counsel that the learned District Judge has acted illegally in dismissing the application for temporary injunction. Again this argument is devoid of any force. It was noted by the learned District Judge that despite an order passed by the Court the petitioner failed to produce the original agreement specific performance of which was sought by the petitioner. It was also observed that admittedly the petitioner had been occupying the land as a tenant. This approach of the District Judge cannot be said to be arbitrary or capricious so as to justify interference by this Court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. (See Shahzada Muhammad Umar v. Sultan Mahmood Khan and another (PLD 1970 SC 139).
Dismissed in limine.