By this revision petition, the petitioner Mst. Amtul Wahab Zia has questioned the correctness of the orders dated 14-4-1975 and 21-1-1977 passed by the Civil Judge, Multan and the learned Additional District Judge, Muitan, respectively restraining the petitioner from interfering with the possession of the respondents.
2. The plaintiffs respondents being the legal heirs of Fazal Din, the original allottee of the land under the Tube Well Sinking Conditions, 1959, claimed to be in continuous possession and challenged the order of the learned Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue Punjab, Lahore dated 30-6-1974 whereby the allotment of the respondents was cancelled and made over to the petitioner allegedly on the pretext that they have, in violation of the provisions of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912), alienated the land in dispute to the petitioner on receipt of a colossal amount of consideration. Aggrieved by this order the respondents have filed a suit for declaration denying having made a bargain and for a consequential relief against the petitioner's apprehended interference in possession. The petitioner has relied on a copy of an uncertified agreement to sell and claimed having paid the entire sale-price, which has categorically been denied by the respondents. The dispute continued for a considerable long time before the Colony authorities and the Board of Revenue. By the questioned order, allotted the land in dispute in favour of the petitioner after cancelling the same from the respondents and ordered the subordinate authorities to resume the land and transfer it to the petitioner.
3. The trial Court granted the temporary injunction till the decision of the suit. The appeal preferred by the petitioner before the learned Additional District Judge failed. The learned appellate Court observed that the disputed questions require adjudication by the Civil Court and for that reason the contentions of the. Respondents make out a fair case for temporary injunction. In view of the irreparable loss and balance of convenience, the temporary injunction was maintained and the appeal was consequently dismissed.
4. Lengthy arguments have been made on both sides, but there is no dispute on the principal requirements of a temporary injunction. The main plea on behalf of the petitioner is that the learned Member, Board of Revenue is the sole authority in respect of Colony lands and he has, after a thorough enquiry, found it . a fit case for cancellation of the allotment. According to the learned counsel, the order of the learned Member, having jurisdiction as a special tribunal, has to be respected ; and so long as it subsists, no presumption favourable to the respondents can be raised. In support of this argument various cases have been cited, but suffice it to say that each case has different features. Therefore, in the matter of a temporary injunction scales are different and each case has to be weighed in its own circumstances.
5. In the instant case the very order, which is given so much sanctity,) is the subject-matter of the suit. It is settled law that civil Courts would ordinarily have jurisdiction to decide whether or not the act purporting toj have been done in the exercise of powers conferred by Act V of 1912 could be validly done under the Act or on the language of section 36 of the Act it cannot be held that jurisdiction has been taken away from the civil Courts by that section. Nor does section 39 of the Act V of 1912 divest the Civil Courts of jurisdiction to adjudicate what legal effect the order of a Revenue Officer validly passed under Act V of .912 will have on the rights of the parties before it. It shall, therefore, be seen by the trial Court whether or not the respondents or their predecessor-in- interest had sold their rights in favour of the petitioner and received the sale-price. It is yet to be determined if the so-called document relied on by the petitioner was a sale-deed or a mere agreement to sell virtually hit by section 19 of Act V of 1912. All the more, it shall be settled at the trial whether the Revenue Officer, however high in rank he may be, had passed the impugned order under the Act.
6. Without expressing a view on the merits, the disputed question raised in the suit establish a prima facie case. The respondents are undoubt--edly in possession and if the impugned order is acted upon, the respondents are likely to suffer an irreparable loss and for that reason the learned Additional District Judge is justified to observe that in case of dispossession the respondents would be put to great hardship. Temporary injunction is discretion and it is laid down to Muhammad Umar Beg v. Sultan Mahmood (PLD 1970 SC 139)that High Court exercises a limited.Jurisdiction in revision under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code which is meant primarily for correcting errors made by the subordinate Courts in the exercise of their jurisdiction and not those which are made in their discretion unless the discretion is found to!, have been exercised fancifully or arbitrarily. I find that do such error is made by the learned Courts below and there is no justification for an interference with the discretion exercised by them.
7. For the reasons stated above, there is no force in the revision petition. It is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. Since the two Courts have granted the temporary injunction without imposing any condition on the respondents, I do not find it fit to require the respondents to deposit in Court the mesne profits or furnish a security in this behalf.