FALAK SHER, J.- The respondents having acquired possession of the spelt out house from the petitioners through Bailiff on 4.7.1985, pursuant to an ejectment order dated 11.3.1984, alleging threatened dispossession there from at the instance of the petitioners preferred a suit for permanent injunction before the Senior Civil Judge, Kasur on 22.5.1984, wherein status quo qua the possession was ordered to be maintained as an interim measure. Despite of which the petitioners dis-possessed the respondents concerning which, in addition to lodging a report with the local police, an application was moved before the Trial Court praying for punitive action for the alleged violation of the injunctive order and restoration of the possession.
2. Which was allowed by the Senior Civil. Judge, Kasur on 12.3.1990 awarding one month's simple imprisonment to the petitioners restoration of the possession into the respondent's was ordered which on appeal was maintained by an Additional District Judge, Kasur on 14.12.1995.
3. However; partly granting the petitioners' Revision (C.R. Ng. 96/1996) a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court with the consent of the parties, setting-aside the awarded sentence of the imprisonment maintained the restored possession vide the impugned order dated 22.4.2003.
4. Against which leave to appeal is being sought contending that restoration of the possession could not be granted for the alleged violation of the injunctive order.
5. Wherein, we are not impressed to interfere because independent of the fact that the petitioners cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate the interim consented order, the main suit still awaiting adjudication, no question of law of public importance meriting interference has been spelt out. Resultantly, the same fail and is hereby dismissed leave declined.