rNTHE COURTOF MUHAMMAD @ DISTRICT

UDGE/ MODEL CIVIL APPI:LLATIj COURT YYAI{.

Civil Appeal No,3Z0fl3of 2019.

+

Date of Institutio$ 30-11-2019.

Date of Decision: 24-01'-2020.

Muhammad Hussain Versus ProainEe of I'uniab etc.

CIVIL API'EAI AGAINST OI(DEITDATED 0{-10.2019.

TUDGMENT.

This appeal has been directed againstthd impugned order

passedby Mr. Imran l-lussainShah,leiarnedCivil Judge

dated 04-10-2019

,f
Ist Class, l,ayyah in a case titled " Mtrlrsmmadllussdin as. Pro'uince

Punjab etc," whereby the learned trial court declined to issue temporary

injunction in favour of the appellant.

2. Compendiously and tersely, facts formit'rg part of instant

civil appeal are that the appellant filed a suit for permahent injunction on

the grourrd that he is in possession of the suit property and the

respondents/ defendants are bent upon to interfere irtrto his possession

by violating his rights of rehabilitation.

3. Alongwith the suit, the appellant has alsp filed applicatio

for temporary injunction restraining, the respon derlrts from illegall

interfering into the suit property.

4. Contention of the appellant was vehemently refuted by the

rcspondents.

5. Learned trial court after hearing the argpments of learned

counsel for both the parties found that the necessa[y ingredients for

grant of temporary injunction does not co-exist in favqur of the appellant

oftheappellant
request
andconsequently injunction
teryporary
t0issue
was declined vide order impugned. I lence, this appeal.
 Muhammad Hussain vs. POp ctc. -2

6. Maher Wazeer l-Iussain Lohanch aclvocate.learneclcounscl

for the appellant contended that the learned trial .orri proceedccl in a

haste and slipshod manner while passing the impugncd order; that the

learrrcd trial court did not perusc thc record availablc on the filc

carefully and the real facts of the casewere not rightly apprcciatcd by thc

learned trial court. In these circumstances, instant appeal be allowed and

the application for temporarv injunction be accepted.

7. Conversely, learned DI)A appearing on bchalf of thc:

rcspondcnts vehemently opposed the arguments proporindccl bv lcarnccl

counsel for the appellant and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

B. Arguments heard. I{ecord perused.

NF 9. Scanning of the record cvinces that the appcllant filcd a

suit for permanent injunction on the g'rroundthat hc is in possessiclngi

the suit property and the respondentsl defenclants are bcnt upon to

interfcre into his possession by violating his rights of rehabilitation.

Contention of the appellant has been vehcmently rcfutecl ancl negatccl by

the rcspondent. lt is an adrnitted position that at this stagc, nothinSr,is

available in favour of the appellant in revenue recorcl conccrning thc:

ownership of suit property. Mere.possessionover the suit property is not

enou5',hfor the grant of temporary injunction. Moreover, the status o{

plaintiff/appellant
over the suit propcrtyhas bccn spccifically

mentioned in the revenue record as "illegal occupant',. I3cing an

encroacher, the appellant cannot be giverr the discretionarl, rclicf of

temporarv injunction. The appellant has badly, failed to establish prima

{acie arguable case. 'I'hree basic ingredients for grant of tcmporary

injunction i.e. prima facie arguable case, irrcparable loss and balance of

inconvcnience are lacking in case of the appellant/platntiff. I have gonc

through the impugned order which is passed in well manner and does
Muhammad Hussain vs. POP etc. -3

Ccrtified that this judgment consists ofl three pag;es,each

page has been dictated, read, corrected and signed by fne.

I)ated:24-A1-202A (Muham Ashi

Addl. Dis
''W:o/,tuP