' KHALIL-UL-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.---The petitioners herein brought a suit in the Court of a learned Civil Judge at Pasroor seeking a declaration that they were owners in possession of the suit 1 and in question described in paras. 3 and 4 of the plaint and seeking also a permanent injunction restraining the defendants and others from alienating the land in question or from interfering in the possession of the petitioners/plaintiffs therein. This suit was accompanied by an application under Order 39, rules 1 and 2 of the C.P.C. Praying for a temporary injunction restraining the defendants and others from alienating the land in question or from interfering with the possession of the petitioners/plaintiffs of the said suit land. Through an order dated 15-5-1998, the learned Civil Judge granted the ad interim injunction, as prayed.
2. The respondents before us questioned the said order by way of an appeal which appeal was allowed by a learned Additional District Judge at Pasroor through an order dated 13-2-1999 and resultantly the above mentioned order dated 15-5-1999 passed by a learned Civil Judge was set aside. The petitioners herein impugned the said Appellate order before the Lahore High Court through Civil Revision No,265 of 1995 which petition was, however, dismissed on 6-4-1999.
3. Hence this petition under Article 185 (3) of the Constitution.
4. It is the case of the petitioners before us that they are the joint owners of the land in question; that they were in actual physical possession of a portion of the said suit land described in paras. 3 and 4 of the plaint (hereinafter called the suit land); that they had even put up a brick-kiln in the said suit land which was operating, therefore, the last about 20 years; that they were apprehending interference by the respondents with their possession of the said suit land and the said brick-klin; that they were further apprehending that the respondents will alienate the suit land in question which was then likely to cause irreparable loss to them; that the balance of convenience was in their favour and further that they had good prima facie which entitled them to the interim relief that they had sought.
5. It is the claim of the petitioners that they were in actual physical possession of the suit land wherein they had established a brick-klin which was in operation. We have not found it possible for us to hold the said claim of the petitioners to be untenable, at least prima facie. In this view of the matter any effort to dispossess the petitioners from the suit land or any alienation on the part of the respondents would only complicate things which might even lead to multiplicity of proceedings, civil and even criminal. The balance of convenience is thus in favour of the petitioners/plaintiffs and the refusal of protection to the parties during the pendency of the suit in question could lead to irreparable loss.
6. Consequently, this petition is converted into appeal. The order, dated 6-4-1999 of the Lahore High Court passed in Civil Revision No,265 of 1999 as also the order dated 13-2-1999 of the learned Additional District Judge at Pasroor are set aside restoring the order, dated 15-5-1998 of the learned Trial Court. There shall be no order as to costs.