The petitioners through the present revision have assailed the orders of both the Courts below by virtue of which the application for temporary injunction moved by the respondent/plaintiff before the trial Court in a suit for permanent injunction was accepted and ad interim injunction was allowed in favour of the respondent.
2. The facts in brief are that Zahoor Ahmad, the respondent/plaintiff before the trial Court filed a suit for permanent injunction on 24-4-2001 with the averments that he is owner in possession of 4 Kanals, 9 Marlas of land in para. 1 of the plaint and has sown wheat crop. The petitioners/defendants have got no concern with this land but they wish to interfere in his possession: Hence the civil suit. The suit was accompanied with an application for temporary injunction that till the final disposal of the civil suit the petitioners/defendants' be restrained from creating interference in the possession of the respondent/plaintiff and be also restrained from creating any obstruction in harvesting the wheat crop sown upon the suit property. The defendants/petitioners filed their written statement and reply to the application for temporary injunction with the averments that their father Khuda Bakhsh is owner in possession of the property and as such they and their father have sown the wheat crop. They denied the averments of the respondent/plaintiff. It was also alleged that the petitioners/defendants have submitted an application for correction of the Khasra Girdawari on the basis of which the respondent/plaintiff sought temporary injunction. During pendency of this matter the trial Court appointed one Advocate Muhammad Sarwar Sabir as a Local Commission to visit the spot and report about possession. The Local Commission submitted report in favour of the petitioners/defendants.
However, as the petitioners/defendants had submitted an application for correction of Khasra Girdawari which had not been disposed of till that time, the trial Court considering all these facts disagreed with the report by Local Commission and placing reliance on the other material made available to him including the Khasra Girdawari allowed the application for temporary injunction.
The petitioner/defendants agitated this order before the First Appellate Court but their appeal was dismissed. The petitioners have filed the present revision petition.
3. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that no presumption of truth is attached to Khasra Girdawari and in this context reliance has been placed upon 2001 M LD 2027. It is also submitted that no objections were filed upon the report of the Local Commissioner by the respondent/plaintiff. Hence there was no discretion left with the dal Court to ignore the report of the Local Commission. It is also submitted that certain facts which were never raised in the pleadings, but the Court below at the time of passing orders on the application of temporary injunction took them into consideration which were not warranted. Reliance has been placed upon PLD 1980 Lah. 38.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff has controverted the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and has submitted that the petitioners took a different stand at the time of filing of the written statement claiming their ownership in possession of that of their father. The petitioners at the time of submission of an application for correction of Khasra Girdawari before the Revenue Officer claimed himself to be in possession of the property as a lessee from one Ruliya and Muhammad Ishaq etc. It is also submitted that with regard to possession the Local Commission relied upon the witnesses who are close relatives of the petitioners and there are concurrent findings with regard to possession of the respondent/plaintiff by the Courts below.
5. Giving due consideration to the submissions made by learned Counsel for both the parties and perusing the material made available before this Court, the respondent/ plaintiff claimed his ownership in possession in the civil suit from one Muhammad Ishaq and entries in the Khasra Girdawari, the petitioners in this regard had also sought reliance from a civil suit filed by Khuda Bakhsh, predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners against the present respondent/ plaintiff and the above-cited Muhammad Ishaq for permanent injunction that the present respondent is threatening to take over possession of Killa No,18 Square No,20 of an area measuring 4 Kanals, 4 Marlas which suit at a later stage was withdrawn by the above-said Khuda Bakhsh. The respondent has also placed reliance upon copy of Khasra Girdawari where Muhammad Ishaq relinquished cultivating rights and possession in favour of Zahoor Ahmad, the present respondent and prior to it Ruliya was in possession of the property as a tenant. The respondent has also relied that through Mutation No,3400 he purchased this property from Muhammad Ishaq and the possession of the property was delivered to him. Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants has submitted that they are in actual possession of the property and in this regard reliance is placed upon the report of Local Commission. Learned counsel for the respondent also places reliance upon a report of the Tehsildar upon an application for correction of the Khasra Girdawari submitted to the Revenue Authorities. The report of the Local Commission reveals that no statement of any one appearing before him was recorded separately. The Local Commission simply mentioned the names of the persons who appeared before him. The Local Commission did not record evidence of the witnesses if any as who were actually present at the suit property. The Local Commission has given undue consideration that there were no signs of bifurcation of the land where wheat crop had been sown by way of any Wat or Banna. The Khasra Girdawari being otherwise the duty. lay heavily upon the Local Commissioner to have gone into the details to verify the actual and physical possession. The copy of Khasra Girdawari being in favour of the respondent/plaintiff and no correction in this regard having still been made at the time of the disposal of the application for temporary injunction. The respondent/ plaintiff in this situation coupled with the fact of civil suit brought by the father of the petitioners/defendants was having a good arguable case if not a prima facie case. In view of the sale effected by Muhammad Ishaq in favour of the respondent/plaintiff the question of balance of convenience and of irreparable loss was also in his favour. As such both the Courts below have rightly exercised their discretion in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. There being concurrent findings of facts, there is no scope for interference through exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. This revision petition is dismissed. However, keeping in view the facts of the case and the questions involved for determination in between the parties, the learned trial Court is directed to dispose of the matter within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 1-9-2002.