INAYATULLAH KHAN versus CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY, ISLAMABAD
Sections 42, 54, 55 and 56 of the Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), O. XXXX, RR 1, 2 for the Case, Permanent, Prohibited and Compulsory Order Temporary Order of Prohibition, Scope of Grant and Mandatory Order of Prohibition Therefore, three components were required to be proved by the plaintiff, which initially involved a good deal, irreparable harm and a balance of convenience. All said that in the present case three components were not available, integration could not be made under section 56 (d) of the Special Relief Act, 1877 when it was related to interference with the official duties, the declaration of suit and application, the plaintiff. / Does not enable the applicant to issue an order from the court to the status quo. It was to prove that, if not uniformly laid down in the Act, would cause harm, there was nothing in the record to establish such a fact, even the balance of damages did not lie in favor of the plaintiff / applicant. , Such as the factors for the determination of the three, the conduct of the parties and the facts of the case should be taken into account so that the purpose of the stay should be to prevent any future injury, if any plaintiff is unlawful. If any of the decisions failed to prove illegal or irregular, the orders were passed to the lower court's decisions / orders by the High Court. The source was maintained under the circumstances
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2011
