FAZAL-UR-REHMAN, J.--- Appellant Ahdullah tiled a Suit for Possession, Declaration and Injunction against the respondents restraining them from using, operating and interference with the disputed property and also praying for mense profit before the learned District Judge, Usta Muhammad.
Alongwith the suit he tiled application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 CPC for injunction for restraining the respondents from interference with the disputed property. Initially ad- interim Injunction was granted and after obtaining written statements and rejoinder and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the order dated 6.4.1999 was vacated and the application was accordingly dismissed by the learned Incharge District Judge, Usta Muhammad on 16.4.1999. Hence this appeal.
2. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Trial Court has failed to consider' the application for injunction in accordance with law, that the Trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the plot on which the Flour Mill has been installed has not been mutated/entered in the name of the respondents. He has stated that the claim of the defendants/respondents is based on a forged document and the Iqrarnama is also not ligal one. He has submitted that the Registrar of District Jafferabad has been approached for the cancellation of registration.
3. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents has contended that it is an admitted position that the respondents/defendants are in possession of the disputed property, the documents, electric connection bills are in the name of respondents and there is also a certificate of the Chief Officer Municipal Committee, Usta Muhammad. It has been contended that in order to decide an application for grant of injunction, three ingredients have to he taken into consideration i.e. Whether the plaintiff has a prima .Facie case in his favour, whether the balance of convenience is in his favour and he is likely to suffer any irreparable loss. Learned Counsel for respondents has contended that prima facie the plaintiff has no case as the documents, hills, receipts etc. Show that the plot in suit and construction of Flour Mill therein stand in the names of the defendants. He has therefore, supported the order of the lower Court. In his order learned Trial Court has observed as under:- "The Flour Mill and its place is in possession of defendant. Besides, this the flour mill is running since long time. If the stay is confirmed the irreparable loss will he caused to the defendant. Therefore, the balance of convenience lies in favour of defendant. In view of the above discussion the application under Order 39 Rules I and 2 CPC is hereby dismissed and order dated 6.4.1999 passed by this Court is vacated."
4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with the contentions of learned counsels for the appellant. I find that the Trial Court has applied its mind to the facts of the case and to the relevant provisions of law and has come to the conclusion-that irreparable loss would he caused to the defendants in case the stay is confirmed as according to the learned Judge the balance of convenience lies in favour of defendants. In the circumstances the plaintiff was not likely to suffer irreparable loss. The Trial Court has given sound reasons in support of the conclusions arrived at by it. On my independent assessm ent, I do not see any reason to disagree with the findings of the Trial Court.
5. Grant of injunction is a serious mailer and Courts should always take good care to grant an injunction in case only where such an injunction is essential. There is nothing that the Court had failed to exercise ,jurisdiction on the question of well-established principles of law. It may he pointed out that the observations in order arising in proceedings of (temporary injunction only tentative and do not prejudice case on merits. In the circumstances of present case no irreparable loss would he caused to the appellant/plaintiff in case of refusal of injunction.
6. Having- regard to the above-mentioned factors, I am of the view that the Court had exercised its discrition properly and not acted illegally nor arbitrarily in rejecting application for temporary injunction and as such, his order does not call thr interference. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.