This is a revision against the order, dated 5-6-1997 passed by the learned District Judge, Mandi Baha-ud-Din, whereby, he dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners/defendants and maintained the order, dated 23-6-1996 passed by Mr. Liaz Ahmad Buttar, learned Civil Judge, Malakwal, whereby the application for temporary injunction moved by the respondent/plaintiff was accepted.
2. The brief facts are that the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration in respect of the land measuring 81 Kanals, 5 Marlas detailed in the head note of the plaint in which he contended that he was in its possession as tenant and was not liable to be ejected forcibly and against law. An application for temporary injunction was moved with the prayer that the petitioners/ defendants be restrained from illegally ejecting or dispossessing the respondent/ plaintiff from the land in question. The petition for temporary injunction was resisted in the Court below on the ground that the respondent/plaintiff was never in possession of the suit land nor he was tenant under it. It was also contended that since it was a dispute regarding ejectment of a tenant therefore, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction in view of section 77 of the Punjab Tenancy Act.
3. The learned trial Court, however, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had a prima facie arguable case being in possession of the land in question and that his illegal ejectment or dispossession would cause him an irreparable loss and inconvenience. It was also held that since the status of the respondent/plaintiff as tenant in the suit land was denied on the ground that he was never in possession of the same, therefore, the question raised thereby would fall within the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to determine the same and as such would not provide any cause to the petitioners/defendants to forcibly evict the respondent/plaintiff from the disputed land. The injunction was accordingly issued with the observation that-the restraining order would not stand in the way of the petitioners/defendants to seek ejectment of the plaintiff/respondent in due course of law by invoking any legal remedy available to them.
4. The aforesaid finding of the learned Civil Judge was upheld in appeal by the learned District Judge against which the present revision petition has been filed.
5. It may be pointed out here that an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act has been moved for the condonation of delay as the present revision petition was time-barred on its face. In this respect it was contended that the impugned order was passed on 5-6-1997. The petitioner applied for obtaining the certified copy of the same on 21-6-1997 which was delivered to him on 23-6-1997. However, the revision could not be filed till 11-11-1998 when it came up for hearing before this Court. As such, it was patently time--barred, therefore, a request for condonation of delay was made on the ground that after passing the impugned order, the respectables of the Ilaqa intervened to settle the dispute between the parties. The present petitioners allegedly gave consent for settlement of the dispute through mediation but after the same could the present revision was filed with the prayer of condonation of delay.
6. I have considered the grounds given for condonation of delay which do not appear to be forceful in the given situation. The names of the respectables have not been disclosed in the petition nor date is given as to when the matter was referred to such respectables for settlement. The consent of the respondent is also not brought on record in respect of the alleged settlement. Hence, there is no ground for the condonation of delay in filing the revision and the application to that effect is dismissed and the revision petition becomes patently time-barred.
7. Even on merits, the prohibitory injunction was issued, whereby the petitioners/defendants were restrained to take the law into their own hands by evicting the respondent/plaintiff per force from the land in question but were permitted to avail any legal remedy in the appropriate forum. In such a situation, there is nothing wrong with the impugned order passed by the learned District Judge or by the learned trial Court so as to call for interference in this revision petition which is dismissed in limine.