HASAN QAMAR ARIF versus CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE THROUGH CHAIRMAN
Article 42 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Exxonx, Rr 1 and 2 suits for the declaration that the cancellation of the plaintiff's construction contract by the authorities was void and had no legal effect. As a result, the relief had to be stopped. In order to enforce the cancellation order, the defendant was also requested that the applicant for the interim injunction be required to establish that there was a good first case in his favor, and the balance of damages in his favor. And will suffer irreparable harm and injury if sufficient material was available to record the decree, which remained unoccupied, to indicate that the construction work was in error in accordance with the applicant's description and , If he has a complaint that he has had enough opportunity to challenge him on the way. Filing a lawsuit for damages which was the appropriate remedy, the rest of the construction work given to someone else was on the way to completion, so it is not inconsistent with the applicant / claimant if the order is granted to the applicant If so, this may hinder the construction work which may or may not be suspended. Both the courts had considered every aspect of the case, while the order was denied. The Applicant / Plaintiff, not suffering any illegal interference or legal malpractice, could not sue for arbitrary relief against the unanimous results of the following courts.
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2010
