' CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF, J.---Challenge in this petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 has been made to the judgment, dated 16-11-1999 passed by a learned Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan whereby the above Civil Revision was dismissed observing that the order impugned therein i.e. Order, dated 21-3-1997 of the lower Appellate Court reversing the grant of interim relief by the trial Court on 2-12-1996, was in order. The result was that the temporary injunction granted by the Trial Court was vacated.
2. It appears that the grounds for vacating the temporary injunction in the litigation pending before the trial Court between the parties in relation to the suit-land measuring 101 Kanals, 19 Marlas situated in. Chak No.214-RB, Tehsil and District Vehari had preceded by the dismissal of an earlier suit of the petitioners up to the Appellate Court, which facts were not disclosed by the plaintiffs/ petitioners in their present suit. In the High Court, it was 'confirmed' by their learned counsel ".... that neither the suit was disclosed in the plaint filed before the trial Court (nor) in the application seeking interim injunction." (Underlining is for emphasis). The learned Judge in Chambers dismissed the revision petition with the direction to the trial Court to decide the suit within three months.
3. Hence this petition.
4. During the course of hearing of this petition, .Mr. Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Wahlah, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing in support thereof was at his lowest in submitting that the grant of temporary injunction to the petitioners in their suit/application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 and section 151, C.P.C. On 2-12-1996 should not have been reversed by the lower Appellate Court and that the failure on the part of the High Court direct resurrection thereof, cannot be maintained. However, he could not even so much as controvert the obvious position that non- disclosure of the attending facts and circumstances in relation to the petitioners' earlier suit, dated 24-7-1996 relating to the same subject-matter as also claiming the very relief which has been prayed for in the present suit, was duly noticed by the learned Appellate Court. The learned Judge in Chambers has not been shown to be in error in any manner whatsoever in refusing to reverse the judgment/ order of the lower Appellate Court, dated 21-3-1997 in the Civil Revision before him.
5. Resultantly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.