SAYED NAJAM-UL-HASSAN KAZMI, J.- This order will dispose of C.R. No. 102/98, as common questions are arising therein.
2. In Civil Revision No. 102/98 suit for cancellation of sale deed, bearing document No. 4605 dated 14.4.1996, was filed by Haji Muhammad Rafique (petitioner herein) against Mst. Iqbal Bano and three others (respondents herein), wherein, it was claimed that petitioner had agreed to sell plot No. 121 in favour of respondent No. 1, for "which purposes sale deed in issue was prepared, but respondent No. 2 (Mr. Sale Shakir, Advocate) who was the local-Commissioner, in league with respondent No. 1 interpolated document by changing plot No. 121 to plot No. 196. The petitioner claimed, that she had never sold plot No. 196 in favour of respondent No. 1 and that she could not claim any title therein.
3. In Civil Revision No. 103/98, Haji Muhammad Rafique (petitioner herein) filed a suit against Rehmat Ali Bajwa and three others (respondents in revision petition) for cancellation of sale deed, bearing document .No. 4604 dated 14.4.1996 and claimed, that he had agreed to sell plot No. 179 In favour of respondent No. 1. But respondent No. 1, in league with Mr. Sale Shakir, Advocate (respondent No. 2) who was the local-commissioner, interpolated the sale deed and changed plot No. 179 to plot No. 197. It was case of the petitioner that she had never sold plot No. 197, therefore, respondents could not have any title therein.
4. In both the suits applications under Section 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC were filed for seeking injunctive relief, to restrain respondents from alienating the plots in issue or from making interference in possession thereof by raising construction.
5. Learned Civil Judge, vide order dated 14.12.1996 dismissed applications for temporary injunction in both the suits. He was mainly influenced by the fact that the sale price was admitted in the plaint and that respondent No. 1 was alleging possession of the plot and, therefore, in his view no case for injunction was made out.
6. Two appeals, filed against the order of the leamed Civil Judge, were dismissed by the leamed Additional District Judge on 19.7.1997. The leamed Additional District Judge was also influenced by the fact that registration of the sale deed was not denied. Amazingly, the leamed Additional District Judge proceeded to make comparison of the signatures and made certain final observations which should have been avoided at that stage.
7. In the two revisions, orders of the leamed courts below refusing injunction, have been assailed.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that orders passed by the leamed Courts below are arbitrary, fanciful and without jurisdiction, as the material questions arising in the suits were completely ignored and an incorrect view was formed on being influenced by extraneous considerations. Learned counsel submitted that photo-copy of the sale deed which was prepared was not looked into though it was indicative of the fact that substantial changes had been made in regard to plots number in two sale deeds and same was a prima facie, evidence of the fact that interpolation had been made. Leamed counsel also submitted that the leamed Additional District Judge committed gross legal error in assuming that the petitioner had already sold the other two plots though in point of fact they had registered criminal case against person who had fabricated a power of attorney and on the basis thereof made fraudulent transaction. In this background, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner had never accepted the alienation of the other two plots.
9. Leamed counsel for the respondents supported the orders of the Courts below and argued, that the orders could not be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction. He further submitted that there was no interpolation and some construction had been raised. On being asked, he frankly admitted that respondents had no intention to further alienate the property during pendency of the suit.
10. The crucial point arising in this case was as to whether the petitioner in two suits had sold plots No. 121 and 179 or plots No. 196 and 197. Photo-copy of the sale deed, placed in the case. Of plot No. 121 does indicate, that originally plot No. 121 was shown in the sale deed, but in the document which had been registered specific cuttings had been made by blackening the portions which were deleted. Plot No. 196 was subsequently added in the third line of sale deed, though prima facie, its place appears to be in line No. 2 after khasra No. 514 min. With black marker a conspicuous parts of lines No. 2 and 4 have been made illegible for the purposes of entering plot No. 196 down bellow line No. 3. If the photo-copy of the original deed as relied by the petitioner is examined it clearly shows that the place at which the black marker has been used to delete a portion of document, plot No. 121 was specifically mentioned. In the other case, though marker has not been used to delete any part of the sale deed but there are serious allegations that numbers of plots have been changed from 179 to 197. The case of the petitioner is, that interpolations in the sale deed are vividly apparent, while it was disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents. It will not be appropriate to express any view at this stage lest the case of either side will be prejudiced.
11. In the written statement filed by the respondents in the suit out of which C.R. No. 102/98 arises it is admitted in para No. 1 (on merits) that initially, the petitioner had agreed to sell plot No. 121. After making this admission, respondent No. 1 alleged that later it came to her knowledge that on plot No. 121 same construction had started by another party and, therefore, petitioner allegedly agreed to give plot No. 196. From this at least, the petitioner gets support in her plea that the agreement was with regard to plot No. 121. It will be, therefore, for the respondents to prove if some novation of the agreement had taken place and in what circumstances any change in the plot number occurred. This fact also cannot be over-looked that criminal case has been registered against the person who claimed a power of attorney for the purposes of alienating the two plots which the petitioner claims to have sold to respondents in two suits.
12. One of the important facts which have been over-looked by the Courts below is that there were serious allegations against the local-commissioner who is respondent No. 2 in this case. Amazingly, this local-commissioner appeared as a counsel for all the respondents in two suits before the Courts below and filed a joint written statement. Even in- these two revisions the same advocate/local- commissioner represented the respondents. The learned Advocate, who acted as local-commissioner, was a witness in this case and it would have been appropriate if he had kept independent position instead of becoming a party for one side. The fact that he not only, contested the suit but also represented the respondents in the trial Court and even appeared in this Court, lends prima facie, support to the allegations of the petitioner, that there was a collusion between the purchaser and local- commissioner.
13. The leamed Courts-below, were influenced by irrelevant considerations and extraneous factors.
Registration of the document by itself could not be a ground for dismissing the application for injunction particularly, when interpolations were alleged and allegations of fraud were raised. As noted, supra, in one case the cuttings and subsequent insertions were, prima facie, apparent on the comparison of two documents while in the other case there were serious allegations of making changes in plot number at its relevant place in the sale deed. This was not the stage, at which, the Additional District Judge should have offer any final opinion as it was bound to prejudice the case of either side.
14. For the purposes of gram of injunction the petitioner was required to show, prima facie, case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss, From the facts noted supra, it is crystal clear that serious questions of law and facts have been raised, the allegations of fraud and interpolation have been taken the pleadings, material exists on the file which prima facie, supports the allegations and the issues involved cannot be resolved without recording evidence. Mere registration of the document does not debar the Court from examining the document if changes and interpolations are alleged in regard thereto. In the given circumstances, the petitioner had succeeded in making out a prima facie, case for the grant of injunction. The balance of convenience did lay in favour of the petitioner and she would suffer irreparable loss if alienations are not stayed pending decision of the suit. Alienation of property if not stopped will introduce strangers which will lead to multiple and endless litigation and will cause irreparable lost. Even otherwise as stated by the leamed counsel for the respondents that respondents had no intention to sell the property, therefore they should not object to the maintenance of status- quo with regard to the alienation during pendency of the suit.
15. As regard raising of construction, leamed counsel for the petitioner has not pressed seriously for the stoppage of construction. The respondents claimed to have raised some construction at site.
This being so, no injunction will be required in this regard. Even otherwise, if respondents will raise any further construction during pendency of the suit they will proceed at their own risk and cost and will not be emitted to claim any compensation therefore if suit is ultimately decided against them.
16. The two Courts below rejected the application for injunction and also the appeal respectively in a fanciful and arbitrary manner and the orders passed by them suffers from perversity of reasoning. It is a settled rule that where the discretion has not been exercised on sound judicial principles and instead exercised fancifully or in violation of the settled nile, the orders can be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction.
17. For the reasons above, the revisions are allowed the orders of the Courts below are set aside and the application for temporary injunction filed by the petitioner in the two suits is allowed, to the extent of alienation of property and it is directed that pending decision of the suit the respondents shall not alienate or transfer the plots in question in any manner.
18. The learned Civil Judge shall accelerate the hearing of two suits and shall ensure its final disposal within three months with intimation to the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court.
19. Any observation made in this order for the purposes of decision of these revisions, shall not prejudice the case of either part, on merits, which will be decided by the leamed Civil Judge, in accordance with law and being uninfluenced by any observation in this order.