FORM No.

HCJD/C-121

ORDER SHEET
LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE.
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

W.P.No.14946 of 2025
Ejaz Ahmed versus Addl. District Judge, etc.

Sr. No. of order/ Date of order/ Order with signature of Judge, and that of
Proceedings Proceeding Parties’ counsel, where necessary

12.03.2025 Mr. Ghulam Akbar Khan Sial, Advocate for petitioner.

Through this constitution petition, petitioner has
called in question order dated 20.07.2024 and judgment
dated 26.02.2025 passed by both the Trial and Appellate
Courts at Tehsil Ferozewala, District Sheikhupura
respectively, whereby in a Suit for specific performance
of agreement to sell dated 14.12.2013 filed by petitioner,
his application for grant of interim relief has concurrently
been dismissed.
2. Learned counsel seeks setting aside of the afore-
referred impugned order and seeks interim relief by
claiming that the petitioner was entitled to interim relief
as the entire sale consideration has been paid by him and
the original owner had transferred possession of the
property to him at the time of execution of agreement to
sell; hence, during the pendency of his suit for specific
performance of agreement to sell, the respondent be
restrained from interfering in his peaceful possession and
not to dispossess him or further alienate the suit property.
3. The claim of petitioner is that he entered into an
agreement with late Syed Muhammad Javed Iqbal Jafri,
respondent No.3, original owner of the property, now
represented by his legal heirs, to purchase land measuring
76-kanals 6-marlas in Tehsil Muridke, District
Sheikhupura, details of which are mentioned in the
plaint, for sale consideration of Rs.85,61,250/- out of
which an amount of Rs.80,61,250/- had been paid at the
W.P.No.14946 of 2025 -:2:-

time of entering into agreement to sell dated 14.12.2013

in the presence of witnesses and remaining outstanding
consideration of Rs.500,000/- has been paid by him in
court but the courts below have not properly appreciated
this aspect of this matter while dismissing the afore-
referred application for grant of interim relief. While
passing the said order and judgment it has also not been
considered that alongwith the said suit another suit for
cancellation of documents was also filed by the petitioner
in which he claimed that he was in possession of property
measuring 43 Acres in Tehsil Muridke District
Sheikhupura owned by respondent No.3 through lease
agreement dated 10.05.2017 for lease of five years
expiring on 10.05.2022 and as he had paid the entire
amount of lease i.e. Rs. 8,00,000/- in cash and Rs.
3,00,000/- through bank draft dated 15.12.2020, the six
cheques issued by him to respondent No.3 as guarantee
for payment of lease amount were liable to be returned
but the same had not been returned, hence were liable to
be cancelled. Both the said suits were proceeding
simultaneously wherein the trial court had passed the
impugned consolidated order dated 20.07.2024 and the
same has been upheld by the appellate court.
4. Perusal of record shows that legal heirs of
respondent No.3 denied the fact that their predecessor in
interest had executed or entered into sale agreement with
the petitioner or received any sale consideration; besides
it was claimed by respondents that property was jointly
owned by respondent No.3 (now represented by his legal
heirs) and his brother namely Syed Ahsan Mukhtar who
is presently residing in U.K. The agreement to sell
allegedly executed by respondent No. 3 is a forged and
fictitious document and does not bear his signatures and
thumb impression, which agreement, even otherwise,
W.P.No.14946 of 2025 -:3:-

cannot bind the afore-mentioned brother of respondent

No. 3, who was the joint owner of the property and had
not authorized respondent No. 3 to transfer property
owned by him. Moreover, it is also claimed by them that
petitioner was tenant in the suit property and the cheques
issued by him for payment of rent have been dishonoured
and the afore-referred suits have been filed just to
prolong the possession of the suit property.
5. The application for interim relief seeking order of
maintaining status quo, protection against interference in
peaceful possession, dispossession and further alienation
has been filed in the suit for specific performance of
agreement to sell. As the agreement to sell and receiving
payment of sale consideration have been denied by the
respondents, who are legal heirs of Respondent No. 3,
hence authenticity of the agreement and payment of
consideration is required to be established by the
petitioner by leading cogent evidence; moreover, why
and how such a huge amount of partial sale consideration
of Rs.80,61,250/- out of total sale consideration
Rs.85,61,250/- was paid in cash and not through bank
transaction on 14.12.2013 has not been explained; it was
also to be explained that why remaining sale
consideration of Rs. 5,00,000/- was not earlier paid to get
sale deed executed, which also shifts the onus upon the
plaintiff/petitioner to establish valid execution of such
agreement and payment of partial consideration requiring
recording of evidence. Needless to mention that it has not
been explained as to why the suit for specific
performance of agreement to sell dated 14.12.2013 has
been filed on 27.05.2021 and not earlier, when the
petitioner could have made payment of remaining sale
consideration of Rs. 5,00,000/- at any time as no time
frame for making such payment had been fixed in the
W.P.No.14946 of 2025 -:4:-

agreement. The payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- in the treasury

on 28.06.2021 by the orders of the Court does not
strengthen the claim of the petitioner as the said payment
is an independent payment and does not confirm that the
initial payment of Rs. Rs.80,61,250/- out of total sale
consideration Rs.85,61,250/- had been made, rather it
only shows that the petitioner has deposited the
remaining sale consideration as was due according to his
stance in the suit, which stance is yet to be established by
recording evidence. The claim of the petitioner of being
in possession of the suit property is also of no help to the
petitioner as the defence taken by the respondents is that
he is holding possession in capacity of tenant who as
mentioned above has already defaulted in payment of due
rent and said possession is stated to be not as a
consequence of agreement to sell, which is claimed by
respondents to be a fake and fabricated document.
Needless to mention, that through suit for cancellation of
documents, the petitioner admitted that he has been a
tenant of the respondents for a period of five years with
effect from 10.05.2017 to 10.05.2022 and it is a settled
principle of law of estoppel that ‘once a tenant, always a
tenant’ also recognized by Article 115 of the Qanun-e-
Shahadat Order, 1984 whereby a tenant cannot deny the
title of his landlord or claim to have a better title than the
owner of the property. Reliance is placed on principles
laid down in cases titled Hakim Khushi Muhammad
versus Mst. Talaat Rana and 7 others (2010 CLC 819
Lahore), Naveed Akhtar versus Special Judge (Rent),
Sialkot and 2 others (2021 CLC 952 Lahore) and Mrs.
Azra Riaz versus Additional District Judge and others
(2021 CLC 623 Lahore).
W.P.No.14946 of 2025 -:5:-

6. In the case of Sarfraz versus Mukhtar Ahmed and

others (2016 CLC Note 48), this Court has also held
that:
"If an alleged tenant is allowed to deny the
relationship of landlord and tenant without having any
proof of title of the disputed property in his favour,
then it will be very easy for any person, who takes over
a property as a tenant and fails to pay the rent to the
landlord/owner, to deny the relationship of landlord
and tenant".

7. As the aspect of change of nature of possession

over the suit property from tenancy to ownership is also
in issue in this petition, consequently, in order to
establish his claim of having purchased the property or
having agreed to purchase the property, heavy onus lay
under the law on petitioner to establish his claim through
cogent evidence, which is still to be recorded and in view
of principles laid down by this Court in judgments titled
Faiz ur Rehman Alvi versus Additional District Judge,
Burewala and others (2020 YLR 2143) and Mst.
Rasheed Bibi versus Muhammad Arshad and others
(2020 MLD 1875) where to establish a claim, evidence is
required to be recorded, prima facie case cannot be
assumed in favour of the petitioner especially when he is
yet to establish his right to hold possession of the suit
property or be transferred its ownership, which already
vests in the respondents, who are owners of the property,
instead of the petitioner, who is stated to be a tenant of
the respondents and his claim is based on mere
agreement to sell which has been denied by the other side
and in view of the principles laid down in judgments
reported Rao Abdul Rehman (deceased) through legal
heirs versus Muhammad Afzal (deceased) through legal
heirs and others (2023 SCMR 815), Nasim Bashir and 8
others versus Nazir Ahmad and others (2017 CLC 1348)
and Raja Riaz Ahmad Khan versus United Bank Limited
W.P.No.14946 of 2025 -:6:-

and 5 others (2003 CLD 552), the agreement to sell

presently does not create any title but gives only a right
to the petitioner to claim specific performance of
contract, if he can prove the said agreement as valid by
refuting the claim of the respondents that it was a forged
and fabricated document; besides, in view of above
discussion, balance of convenience tilts in favour of the
respondents, owners of the property and not the
petitioner, holder of disputed agreement to sell, as by
grant of interim relief the respondents are likely to suffer
more than what the petitioner would suffer if interim
relief is refused.
8. Even otherwise, mere being in possession of suit
property does not entitle petitioner to interim relief unless
he establishes his right to hold property through some
title document or on the basis of a legal right which in the
present case is also yet to be established and determined
after recording evidence for the reason that contrary
stance has been taken by the parties regarding nature of
petitioner’s possession over the suit property; besides
petitioner in the present situation has failed to establish
how he shall suffer an irreparable loss if interim relief is
not granted in his favour, hence due to missing of
ingredients required to exist for the grant of interim
relief, he cannot be granted interim injunction to hold
possession of suit property for an indefinite period of
time adverse to the rights of the respondents who are the
owners of the property. Reliance in this regard is placed
upon Muhammad Ali v. Mahnga Khan (2004 SCMR
1111), Muhammad Ahmad Farooq and another v.
Province of Punjab through Member Judicial-VII, BOR,
Punjab Lahore through DCO/Collector District Sahiwal
and 12 others (2018 MLD 959) and Muhammad Ajmal
Khan v. Mst. Iqbal Mai (PLJ 2018 Lahore 907).
 W.P.No.14946 of 2025 -:7:-

9. The petitioner apprehends that respondents would

transfer the suit property to some outsider during the
pendency of civil suit for specific performance of
agreement to sell filed by petitioner against respondents
but the rights of petitioner would stand protected under
the principle of lis pendens, and in case he succeeds in
the suit, law shall take its own course, hence as the
ingredients for grant of interim injunction i.e. prima facie
case, balance of convenience and petitioner’s suffering of
irreparable loss are missing in the present case, this Court
is not inclined to interfere in the impugned order and
judgment passed by both the learned courts whereby
application for the grant of temporary injunction has been
declined.
10. For what has been discussed above, in view of
absence of any illegality of jurisdictional defect no
ground to interfere in the impugned order and judgment
passed by the both courts is made out whereby the same
could be held to have been passed without jurisdiction or
lawful authority and nullity in the eye of law and of no
legal effect. Resultantly, this petition being devoid of
merit is dismissed.
11. However, it is made clear that the afore-referred
observations recorded by this Court are tentative in
nature and the learned trial court shall decide the afore-
referred lis pending between the parties on its own merits
without being influenced by any observation recorded by
this Court.

(MUZAMIL AKHTAR SHABIR)

JUDGE
*KMSubhani*

Approved for reporting.