Heard:
2. Alongwith suit for declaration to the effect that being legal heirs of Abdul Khaliq deceased, they are owner in possession to the extent of 1/2 share of land in.Dispute measuring 215 Kanals and 13 Marlas, described in detail, in headnote of the plaint and perpetual Injunction as Consequential Relief instituted by - petitioners/plaintiffs against respondents/defendants, an application presumably, under .Order XXXIX, rules 1 and -2, C.P.C. Restraining the respondents from, interfering in their possession over land, forming the subject--matter of "lis" and alienating it in any manner till the decision of suit was moved.
3.It was resisted on factual as well as legal grounds.
4. Same, ultimately, was turned down vide an order dated 24-2-1997 by Mr. Muhammad Ghauri Qureshi, learned Civil Judge, seized of the matter. It was assailed in appeal, w1iich, also met the same fate by means of an order dated 15-3-1997 passed by Muhammad As)am Khan, learned Additional District Judge, Khanpur.
5. Such orders of learned Courts below, have been, called in question in instant Revision petition on the grounds enumerated in paragraph No.3 thereof.
6. Reiterating the same, it has been canvassed that predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners was co-owner and co-sharer to the extent of one-half share of the suit land as he had been paying instalments to the Government and even co--sharer Sher Muhammad (deceased) had acknowledged the rights of his brother Abdul Khaliq, ancestor of the petitioners, vide agreements dated 29-11-1951 and 9-6-1984. Also it has been claimed that the petitioners are in cultivating possession of land in question; a good prima facie case is made out in their favour and that these important aspects were completely ignored by learned Courts below. Another significant factor, said to have escaped the notice of learned lower Courts is to the effect that on an application of the petitioners. Revenue hierarchy have moved for correction of entries of Khasra Girdawari.
Patwari and Girdawar have reported and verified that the petitioners are in possession of the suit land.
7. Karachi Catholic Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. v. Mirza Jawad Baig (PLD 1994 Karachi 194) and Mrs. Shazadi Baber v. Hina Housing Project (Pvt.) Ltd. And others (1994 CLC 1601) have been referred and relied upon to contend, interalia, that in establishing a prima facie case, a plaintiff need not establish his title and it would be sufficient for him to show that he has a fair question to raise so as to existence of his right and that till the question is ripe for trial, a case is made out for preservation of property in "status quo".
8.It goes without saying that having miserably failed in two rounds, the petitioners have resorted to this third round and that too in a peculiar and mysterious manner. Mode adopted by them.
Manifestly suggests that they have not come with clean hands and have disentitled themselves to any relief. It does not lie in their mouth to harp same tune. In any event, mere entries of Khasra Girdawari, which, .Even, do not lend any support to their cause presently are hardly sufficient to make out good prima facie case in favour of the petitioners. Similarly other essential ingredients, balance of convenience, which. Is more or less balance of inconvenience and irreparable loss, in the event, of refusal of injunction, undoubtedly, "sine qua non" for grant/refusal of temporary injunction are neither existing in favour of petitioners nor were taken so by both the learned Courts below.
9.As a sequel thereto, application was rightly turned down by orders, referred to above, and no exception can be taken thereto.
'10. Be that as it may, section 115, C.P.C. Applies to cases involving illegal assumption, non-exercise or irregular exercise of jurisdiction. It cannot be invoked against conclusions of law or facts which, do not in any way, affect the jurisdiction of the Court, no matter, however, erroneous, wrong or perverse, 'the decision might be either on a question of fact or law, unless the decision involved a matter of jurisdiction. An erroneous conclusion of law or fact is liable to be corrected in appeal, but, revision will not be competent on such a ground, unless in arriving at such conclusion. An error of law, has been committed. .
11. Neither any such aspect has been put forth or highlighted nor is seemingly available so as to attract or entail provisions of section 115, Civil Procedure Code, which, thus, can neither come into play nor pressed into service. Orders sought to be impeached and set at naught, are accordingly unassailable as the same neither appear to suffer from any infirmity nor, perversity or arbitrariness.
12. Viewed from any angle, revision petition merits outright dismissal anti is hereby dismissed in limine.