1. ' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the order, dated 25-4-2002 of a learned single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby the petitioner's application for recalling of the earlier order, dated 20-7-1999 passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No 493 of 1985 was dismissed.
2. ' The facts as stated by the petitioner are that he was given on lease 8 acres of agricultural land by respondent No,2, Administrator, Evacuee Trust Property, Lahore. His application for renewal of lease was rejected in the year 1980 by respondent No,3, Assistant Administrator, Evacuee Trust Property, Sheikhupura, on 7-7-1980. His appeal also met the same fate and was dismissed by the Administrator, Evacuee Trust Property, on 14-9-1981. His revision petition was dismissed by respondent No,1 on 15-2-1984, whereupon the petitioner filed Writ Petition No, 493 of 1985, which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 20-7-1999. The petitioner moved on 22-4-2002 C.M. No, 1 of 2002 for the restoration of above writ petition.
3. ' It was contended before the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court that the petitioner's counsel fell sick and he could not enter appearance on the above date of hearing. The learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court through the order, dated 25-4-2002 has dismissed the said application. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal.
4. ' We have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel and have gone through the documents appended with this petition. He has reiterated the arguments which were advanced before the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court. The application for restoration of the aforesaid writ petition was hopelessly time barred and no plausible explanation was furnished by the petitioner for this inordinate delay. The learned Single Judge has discussed all these aspects in the order impugned and we do not find any justification to interfere with the same. His determination is reproduced as under:--- "It was noted in the order, dated 20-7-1999 that not only the case was duly listed for hearing even notices had been issued by the office to the parties for the said date, but the petitioner remained unrepresented. The application is hopelessly belated and time barred. There is a general assertion in paragraph No,4 of the application that the applicant saw his counsel in the year 2001. No date or month has been stated neither there is any specific averment as to when he learnt of the dismissal of the petition. Suffice it to observe that in a matter, the party approaches the Court beyond the period of limitation, he is required to explain the delay of each day."
5. 'Resultantly, for what has been stated above, the present petition being without any merit is dismissed and leave declined.
6. Petition dismissed.
7. 2004 SCM R 1111 [Supreme Court of Pakistan] (On appeal from the order, dated 14-10-1999 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Civil Revision No, 886 of 1999).
(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 42 & 54---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Suit for declaration and permanent injunction---Interim injunction, grant of--- Plaintiff claimed four sale deeds to be Benami and that defendant was his tenant---Trial Court granted temporary injunction directing defendant not to alienate suit property---Order of Appellate Court setting aside interim order was maintained by High Court in revision filed by plaintiff--Validity---Registered sale deeds had prima facie established title of defendant to suit land---Plaintiff could not be said to have a prima facie case, unless such deeds were displaced--- Plaintiff had filed suit after more than twenty six years of first registered transaction and more than twenty four years after last transaction---Such inaction on the part of plaintiff would be taken a circumstance going against him---Mere possession would not entitle plaintiff to interim injunction---Supreme Court dismissed petition and refused leave. [p. 1112] A, B & C
(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----0.XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2---Mere possession would not entitle plaintiff to grant of interim injunction. [p.
8. 1112] B Ch. Khan Muhammad Bajwa, Advocate Supreme Court with S. Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate- on-Record for Petitioner.
9. Nemo for Respondent.
10. Date of hearing: 20th June, 2002.
11. ' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.---Leave to appeal is soughtagainst the order, dated 14-10-1999 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby Civil Revision No, 885 of 1999 filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
12. ' The facts briefly narrated are that the petitioner filed a declaratory suit with permanent injunction against the respondent praying that four different sale deeds, the detail of which is given in the plaint, were in fact Benami transactions. The respondent/defendant, according to him, was his tenant. Alongwith the suit an application for temporary injunction was filed and the learned Civil Judge, Sialkot, accepted the said application and directed the respondent/defendant not to alienate the disputed,property. An appeal was filed against this interim order and the learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot, through his judgment, dated 6-5-1999 accepted the same and set aside the interim order of the learned Civil Judge, Sialkot. The petitioner preferred a Civil Revision No, 886 of 1999 before the Lahore High Court, which has been dismissed by a learned Single Judge through the judgment, dated 14-10-1999, impugned herein. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal.
13. We have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents appended with the petition. The learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court has advanced cogent reasons in declining the prayer of the petitioner. It would be appropriate to reproduce the determination of the learned Single Judge which is in the following terms:---- "6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. The registered sale deeds prima faice, establish title of the respondent to the land in dispute. Unless it was displaced, it could not be said .That the petitioner had a prima facie case. The petitioner had filed the suit on 30-9-1997 after more than 26 years of the first registered transaction and more than 24 years after the last registered transaction. The inaction on the part of the petitioner was also taken to be a circumstance going against the petitioner. I am in agreement with the observation of the learned First Appellate Court that mere possession did not entitle in the petitioner to the interim injunction. I .See no ground to interfere. This petition is, accordingly dismissed."
14. For the foregoing reasons, the instant petition fails and is hereby dismissed and leave declined.