A suit for possession was filed by the appellant/plaintiff against the respondents/defendants in respect of the land measuring 89 Kanals and 13 Marlas situated in village Rajua Sadaat, Tehsil Chiniot, District Jhang for a consideration of Rs.6,82,500 to be paid in pursuance of the specific performance of the agreement, dated 12-10-1995. An application for temporary injunction was moved alongwith the suit with the prayer that the respondents/defendants be restrained not to further alienate the disputed land during the pendency of the suit. The application was contested by the respondents on the ground that no agreement, as alleged in the plaint, was ever executed by them nor any earnest money amounting. To Rs.3,00,000 was received and that the consequential receipt and the agreement deed were bogus and forged.
2. In this respect, it was contended that about 16 or 17 years back, the respondents/defendants including respondent/defendant No.6 had purchased some land in village Rajua from Imdad Hussain Shah and other owners. Later on, Imdad Hussain Shah entered into a litigation and was allegedly harassing and blackmailing the respondents/defendants. However, he continued to be in illegal possession of the property in dispute. After his death, his sons continued in illegal possession of the same. The aforesaid Imdad Hussain, however, got prepared a forged arbitration agreement, dated 28-3-1992 and also manoeuvred an arbitration decision on 28-6-1992 which was collusive and fictitious. He applied to the Civil Court, Chiniot on 6-7-1992 to make the aforesaid arbitration award as rule of the Court but his application, after having been contested, was dismissed on 12-11- 1995. Later on, the legal heirs of the aforesaid Imdad Hussain Shah filed an appeal in the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, Chiniot which too was dismissed on 30-9-1997 on its merit. It was further contended in the written statement filed by the respondents/defendants in the Court below that the present plaintiff/petitioner namely Syed Ahmad Shah was closely related to Imdad Hussain Shah deceased, whose legal heirs had entered into some sort of collusion with the present petitioner/plaintiff to reopen a fresh round of litigation on the so-called agreement which never existed.
3. Conversely, it is contended by the petitioner/appellant that in fact the respondents/defendants Nos.1 to 5 and 7 to 9 had entered into an agreement of sale with the petitioner/plaintiff through their general attorney i.e. Respondent No.6 namely Sardar Muhammad who had received Rs.3,00,000 as advance money out of the total consideration of Rs.6,82,500 for which a receipt was allegedly executed on 12-10-1995; that since the defendants/respondents were bent upon to alienate the property in question to some other person, therefore, the present suit for specific performance of the agreement was filed in which the application for temporary injunction as aforesaid was moved.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the application for stay order was dismissed by the learned lower Court on the principle of lis pendens with the observation that any further alienee would be bound by the decree to be passed by this Court, or could be impleaded as a party in the case. The petition was also rejected on the ground that since the agreement in question and the receipts had been totally denied and are written on a plain paper, so their credentials would not make out a prima facie case to equip the petitioner/plaintiff with an injunction as prayed.
5. Learned counsel while confronted with this situation during the preliminary arguments that how injunction may be granted when the petitioner/plaintiff has not acquired any proprietary right in the property in question which he has yet to prove during the trial by producing that the agreement in question was genuine and that the advance money was actually paid through the alleged receipt because both the documents have been denied by the respondents/defendants.
Likewise, it was put to him that if the property in question is further alienated the alienee would be bound by the decree of the Court as well as can be made a party in the proceedings. .
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contended that no doubt the principle of lis pendens will apply in the given situation but to avoid the multifariousness of proceedings, the learned trial Court should have granted the injunction.
7. I have considered the foregoing submissions and find that the agreement in question is yet to be proved at the trial like the receipt under which the advance money was paid as alleged in the plaint. Even otherwise, the petitioner is not likely to suffer any irreparable loss or inconvenience as enjoined by law if the stay is refused. In case, the property is transferred further by the respondents, the same shall be subject to the judgment to be passed in the suit in hand. The principle of lis pendens will be attracted to the given situation. Even otherwise, after the alienation, the alienee can also be impleaded to secure the right of the petitioner/plaintiff, if any.
8. After considering the foregoing facts, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limine.
Civil Miscellaneous Nos.3/C and 524/C of 1998
9. Stand disposed of with the disposal of the main petition.