' This civil revision is directed against order dated 30-5-2002 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Khanewal whereby he accepted the respondent's appeal.
2. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are that a suit was filed by the petitioner against the respondent and Province of Punjab for seeking declaration that he is owner of the suit property and that Mukhtar Ahmad has got no concern with the said property; by way of consequential relief it was prayed that the respondent be perpetually restrained from interfering with his possession over the said property. Alongwith the plaint a stay application was also moved.
It was contested by Mukhtar Ahmad and vide order dated 27-6-2001 it was accepted by the learned trial Court.
3. Mukhtar Ahmad filed an appeal against the said order which was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, Khanewal on 30-5-2002, consequently petitioner's stay application was dismissed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the aforesaid order of learned Additional District Judge, Khanewal on the following grounds:--
(i) The learned Appellate Court had failed to appreciate that the petitioner was not only in possession but also had a registered sale-deed in respect of the said property in his favor and the said deed coupled with his possession were sufficient to establish strong prima facie case. Balance of convenience was also in favor of the petitioner because he was likely to suffer an irreparable injury in case he was dispossessed.
(ii) Bona fide purchase of the said property by the petitioner was not denied by the respondent; and
(iii) The learned Appellate Court had committed illegality and material irregularity in accepting the appeal and dismissing the stay application by misinterpreting the relevant law.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have also perused civil revision and the annexures appended therewith.
6. The learned Appellate Court had accepted the appeal for the reasons that it was on record that the respondent had filed an ejectment application against the petitioner before the learned Rent Controller for seeking his eviction from the suit property which was accepted on 27-5-2000. The petitioner's appeal against that ejectment order of learned Rent Controller was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on 6-4-2001; the said order attained finality as it was not challenged by the petitioner in any higher forum; the petitioner had thereafter on 30-5-2001 come up with the declaratory suit. The learned trial Court had failed to consider that the contesting respondent also possessed a registered sale-deed in respect of the said property which was executed in the year 1990 on the basis of which Mutation No,8 was also entered in favor of the contesting respondent in the Revenue Record in the year 1991. For the said reasons it was held by the learned Appellate Court that the petitioner did not possess a prima facie case and before claiming against the contesting respondent (landlord) the petitioner should have first surrendered possession.;
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not deny before me that order of ejectment in respect of the suit property was passed by the learned Rent Controller against the petitioner which was upheld in appeal and the petitioner did not assail that order in any higher forum.
8. From the record it was, therefore, clear that the petitioner was inducted in the suit property as a tenant by Mukhtar Ahmad respondent hence he could not challenge the title of the said respondent (landlord) without first surrendering possession to him. In the given situation, the petitioner could hardly be deemed to possess a prima facie case for the grant of interim injunction.
9. Contention of the petitioner's counsel that bona fide purchase of the petitioner was not denied by the respondent is entirely misconceived.
10. Section 115, C.P.C. Is directed against irregular exercise, non-exercise or illegal assumption of jurisdiction and not against the conclusion of fact or law not involving the question of jurisdiction.
Learned counsel for the petitioner could not draw my attention to the breach of any provisions of law or commission of any error of procedure by the learned Appellate Court.
11. The conclusion arrived at by the learned Appellate Court is based on sound and plausible reasons, hence interference in the revisional jurisdiction is not warranted. Civil revision is accordingly dismissed in limine.