DISTRICT COLLECTOR, BANNU Versus MUHAMMAD SUBHAN

ORDER

MUHAMMAD ALAM KHAN, J .--- Through this revision petition filed under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code,' the petitioners, District Collcctor, Bannu and five others, have called in question the judgment/order, dated 11-3-2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-III, Bannu, whereby their appeal against the judgment/order, dated 8-12-2007 of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bannu was dismissed.

2. Briefly stated facts of the case giving rise to this petition in revision are that Muhammad Subhan etc. respondents/plaintiffs, had filed a suit for grant of permanent injunction in the lower Court against the petitioners/defendants to the effect that they are owners-in-possession of the five suit shops situated on Plot No.C-4953 measuring 2-1/2 Marlas, Gowshala Bazar Bannu, and that the issuance of notice to Shamsha Mir, pro forma defendant by petitioner No.1 was illegal, mala fide, and ineffective upon their rights. Along with the plaint, the plaintiffs had also prayed for issuance of temporary injunction against the defendants Nos.1 to 5 to restrain them from interfering with the suit shops in any manner and to reopen the same for their business. Along with the suit, another application was also filed by the plaintiffs for reconstruction of the suit shops demolished by the defendants during pendency of the suit. After hot contest by the defendants, both the applications were allowed by the trial Court and while ordering maintenance of status quo till six months or disposal of the suit whichever was earlier, the defendants were directed to restore the possession of the disputed property by its reconstruction within three months order, dated 8-12-2007. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants challenged the said order in appeal but it too met the same fate vide order, dated 11-3-2008, hence this revision petition.

3. I have heard learned Deputy Advocate-General representing the petitioners and perused the available record.

4. Merits/demerits of the case need not to be discussed as the impugned order of the trial Court has lost its life and is no more in the field. The trial Court had granted temporary injunction to the plaintiffs/ respondents on 8-12-2007 and under the provisions of Order XXXIX, rule 2(b), C.P.C., such order is to survive for six months unless and until it was extended and that too for reasons to be recorded and the same communicated to this Court. The record indicates that neither the aforesaid order has been extended nor the plaintiffs had made any request for its further extension. Thus, the ad interim injunction granted by the learned trial Court on 8-12-2007 stood automatically expired after the lapse of six months on 8-6-2008 and factually there was no order in the field to be impugned by the petitioners/defendants.

5. In view of the facts and circumstances discussed above, coupled with the dictum laid down in the case of Syed Shah Jehan Shah and 22 others v. Fazal-ur-Rehman and 45 others 1996 CLC 1572 and the dictum laid down in the case of Gul Haider v. Dr. Asad Zia 2003 YLR 913 when there is no subsisting order of ad interim injunction, therefore, this revision petition has become infructuous and stands dismissed in limine.

H.B.T./134/P Petition dismissed.