Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 115

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----OXXXIX, Rr.l, 2 & S.115---Revisional jurisdiction, exercise of---Application of petitioner for grant of temporary injunction was concurrently dismissed by Courts below despite petitioner having proved to have prima facie case, balance of convenience in his favour and irreparable loss in case temporary injunction was refused to him---Courts below having acted with material irregularity and illegality in exercise of jurisdiction vested in them in dismissing application of petitioner, High Court accepting revision petition, set aside concurrent order of Courts below and granted temporary injunction to petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Yaqub Sabir for Petitioner. Ch. Abdur Rehman for Respondent No.l. Ch. Khalil-ur-Rehman for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3. Date of hearing: 19th February, 1991. JUDGMENT This revision petition is directed against the order dated 7-10-1984 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kasur, dismissing the petitioner's appeal against the order dated 18-5-1980 passed by the learned trial Court dismissing his application for issuance of temporary injunction during the pendency of the suit. The petitioner in the suit challenged the alleged arbitration agreement, arbitration award and the decree passed on the basis of the award on the ground of fraud, misrepresentation. His case was that he neither executed any arbitration agreement nor participated in the arbitration proceedings. He also did not appear before the Court which made the award rule of the Court which order was obtained through fraud. Alongwith the suit an application was made that the petitioner's possession over the property in dispute may not be disturbed during the pendency of the suit.     The learned trial Court found that the petitioner did not fulfil the three conditions for issuance of temporary injunction, therefore, the application of the petitioner was dismissed through order dated 18-5-1980 which has been upheld in appeal by the learned lower appellate Court through order dated 7-10-1984 by which the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that…