' This revision petition is directed against the order of the learned District Judge, Vehari, dated 17-2- 1977, by which he dismissed the application of the petitioner for the grant of temporary injunction.
' According to the facts of the case, the petitioner (The Burewala Textile Mills Ltd., Dawoodabad, Burewala) filed a declaratory suit against the respondents-defendant Messrs Zeenat Textile Mills Ltd., Lyallpur and others for a declaration to the effect that the plaintiff-petitioner was owner in possession of 300 bales of cotton marked as Lots Nos. 18, 19 and 21, manufactured by Qiswar Brothers Cotton Ginners. Medd. Along with the suit the petitioner-plaintiff also submitted an application under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2, C. P. C. For issuance of a temporary injunction restraining the defendants-respondents from interfering with its possession of the cotton till the decision of the suit.
' The contention of the plaintiff-petitioner is that they are the purchaser of the property in dispute from ore Shahid Iqbal Khan whereas defend, ant No, 1 respondent's case is that they are purchasers of 954 bales from Messrs Qiswa r Brothers, Mailsi, out of which 300 bales of cotton were lying in the premises of Aftab Cotton Ginning Factory, Mailsi for onward transportation to Lyallpur. Since the prices of the cotton bales had increased, Messrs Qiswar Brothers are alleged to have again sold the property in dispute to Shahid Iqbal Khan and from there the plaintiff-petitioner had purchased the same. The suit was resisted by the defendants. Respondents and during this period respondent No, 1 (Zeenat Textile Mills reported the matter to the Police ride F. L R. No, 170/76 dated 6-7-1976 under section 380, P. P. C. About the theft of 300 cotton bales. The Police took into possession the 300 cotton bales on 6-7-1976. A Miscellaneous application came up for hearing before the learned Civil Judge, Vehari and he issued status quo on 7.7-1976 and confirmed the same on 13-7-1976 in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner. Respondent No, 1 filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, Vehari. This appeal was accepted, the status quo was vacated and the application of the petitioner for ad interim injunction was dismissed. Aggrieved by this order of the learned District Judge, Vehari, dated 17-2-1977, a revision petition has been filed in the High Court.
2. On 2!-2-1977, the record was sent for and status quo was granted subject to notice. The petition was net admitted but the learned counsel for the respondents appeared in pursuance of the notice in the status quo application. Since the learned Judge of the High Court who passed this order was busy in the Full Bench, so this case was transferred to this Court.
3. It is admitted by both the parties that the Police Officer who is investigating the theft case took into possession the cotton bales on 6-7-1976 and the status quo was ordered by the learned Civil Judge, Vehari on 7-7-1976 when the property in dispute was neither with the plaintiff-petitioner nor with respondent No, 1.
' The question which arises for consideration is whether in such circumstances the order of status quo could be passed by the Court ?
' Both the learned counsel have addressed their arguments in detail. It appears that under section 56(e) of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 which reads as under "To stay proceedings in any criminal matter," no stay can be granted either to stay a criminal proceeding or if it has the effect of staying a criminal proceeding. The Police official is still investigating the natter and if the stay is granted with respect to the stolen property the subject matter of the revision it shall have the effect of staying the criminal proceeding and the same cannot be granted in view of the prohibition mentioned above.
4. It may be stated that in para. No, 2 of the petition it has been specifically stated that the petitioner is in possession and use of the cotton bales.
5. This averment is absolutely incorrect in view of the fact that the possession of the cotton bales since 6-7-1976 is with the Police and most probably on this averment the learned Judge granted the status quo. Since the order has been passed on mispresentation of facts the petitioner he not entitled to any discretionary relief.
6. If the property in dispute is actually neither with the plaintiff-petitioner nor with the contesting respondent No, 1 (Zeenat Textile Mills Ltd. Lyallpur) the order of status quo should not have been passed by the learned civil Judge.
7. Three important factors should have been taken into consideration by the Court below before passing the status quo order (i)Whether a prima facie case exists in favour of the petitioner,
(ii) balance of convenience, and irreparable loss.
8. As far as pima facie case is concerned, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that they had actually purchased 954 cotton bales from Messrs Qiswar Brothers, Mailsi and these were pledged with Aftab Cotton Ginning Factory, Mailsi. Out of these, 300 cotton bales were lying in the premises of Aftab Cotton Ginning Factory which were to be transported to other factories and they have already paid the entire price of the cotton bales.
9. If this is eventually established by the learned trial Court, then respondent No, 1 has a prima Jack case and no relief could be granted to the petitioner. On the other hand, if it is presumed for the sake of argument that the petitioner will eventually succeed, then no question of irreparable loss would arise. If he loss, if any, suffered by the petitioner can be made good by way of compensation.
In such circumstances the order of the learned District Judge, Vehari dated 17-2-1977 is not open to any exception, and the same is affirmed.
10. As a result, the civil revision is dismissed in limine.