' This is a revision petition against the order dated 9-5-1996, passed by Mr. Sardar Ahmad Chaudhry, learned Additional District Judge, Sargodha, whereby, the appeal filed by Mst. Surraya Kausar against Muhammad Asmat Ullah i,e, the present petitioner was accepted and the order dated 4-7-1995, passed by Miss Meh Rukh Aziz, learned Civil Judge, Sargodha was set aside.
2. Brief facts are that the petitioner filed a suit for declaration through his attorney Muhammad Iqbal against Surraya Kausar regarding the land measuring 55-1/4 Kanals, fully detailed in the headnote of the plaint. It was contended that the petitioner/plaintiff was in possession of the land in question and that the respondent/defendant was claiming the land in question having purchased from the petitioner through his attorney Muhammad Sadiq vide Mutation No,488, dated 2Q-9-1994. It was contended that the aforesaid mutation was based on fraud, misrepresentation and forgery. Further contended that, it was without consideration and as such, not binding on the petitioner.
3. An application for temporary injunction was moved before the learned Trial Court which was accepted by the learned Civil Judge as stated above. The respondent, feeling aggrieved of the acceptance of the petition for temporary injunction went in appeal which was accepted as mentioned above.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent claimed to have purchased the land in question through the disputed mutation for an ostensible price of Rs,1,00,000 on the basis of a power of attorney executed by the petitioner in favour of his father Muhammad Sadiq which was registered in Pakistan. It 'is alleged that the aforesaid document was, in fact, forged by making interpolation in the name of original executant namely Muhammad Azam i,e, another brother of the petitioner. It was, therefore, contended that the power of attorney relied upon by the respondent was actually a forged document and as such, did not authorise the aforesaid Muhammad Sadiq to enter into any sale.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that there was no interpolation in respect of the aforesaid power of attorney which was never challenged even in the plaint. In this context, it was alleged that Muhammad Sadiq was fully authorised by the petitioner to sell the land and after having entered into such sale, has backed out by inventing a false plea of forgery and misrepresentation. On the contrary, the petitioner had in fact received Rs,8,50,000 for the aforesaid land but to save the stamp duty, etc., the petitioner had shown ostensible price of Rs,1,00,000 at the time of attestation of mutation. It was, therefore, contended that a conspiracy was hatched to undo the solemn transaction entered into by the petitioner through his father acting on his behalf as his general attorney.
6. I have given my careful attention to the arguments, addressed at the Bar.
' The petitioner has challenged sale Mutation No,488 in favour of the respondent on the ground that it was without consideration, forged and fictitious. In this context, it was alleged that in fact the power of attorney was executed by one Muhammad Azam, another brother of the petitioner in favour of his father Muhammad Sadiq, but the respondent committed forgery to convert it in the name of the petitioner by changing the word 'Azam' to word 'Asmat' the photo copies of both the documents i,e, executed by Muhammad Azam as well as purportedly executed by Muhammad Asmat have been placed on record. The question of interpolation or forgery can only be gone into after thorough enquiry at the trial. At present, it is to be seen if there is a prima facie case in favour of the petitioner so as to equip him with a temporary injunction. In this respect, the ,perusal of the photo copy of the mutation deed No,488 shows that the petitioner had sold the land in question through his father acting as his general attorney. The mutation was attested in the general meeting of the village by the Revenue Officer in the presence of the aforesaid Muhammad Sadiq who is the real father of Muhammad Asmat petitioner. Nobody took any objection at that time which prima facie shows that Muhammad Sadiq acting as general attorney for the petitioner being his father had entered into the transaction in question. As such, prima facie, the transaction appeared to be solemn till it was proved to be tainted with forgery or misrepresentation. Even otherwise, nothing was said in respect of the document itself that it was result of forgery or misrepresentation though the mutation in dispute was challenged on the above said grounds.
7. In the light of above discussion, the petitioner had no prima facie case so as to be equipped with a temporary injunction. The balance of convenience is also on the side of the respondent who is likely to suffer irreparable loss if an injunction is granted to the petitioner to frustrate the sale in question at this stage. As such, there is no good ground to interfere with the order dated 9-5-1996 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sargodha, whereby, the application for temporary injunction moved by the petitioner against the respondent in the suit below was dismissed.
Accordingly, the revision petition being meritless is dismissed. Costs to follow the event.