Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Civil Miscellaneous Application No.2508 of 1986 in Suit No.328 of 1986, decided on 26th August, 1986.
---O.XXXIX, Rr.1 a 2--Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 54--Interim injunction, grant of--Interim relief demanded same as final relief--Validity of grant of such relief--Where plaintiff by filing suit has sought permanent mandatory injunction for directing defendant-Corporation to release and pay to plaintiff disputed instalment of loan, plaintiff, held, could not be granted such mandatory injunction by way of interim relief as grant of such relief at that stage would tentamount to grant of final relief claimed by plaintiff in his suit which would very seriously prejudice defendants.
Election Officer Gujrat v. Abdul Ghani etc. A I R 1923 Lah. 47; P L D 1973 Kar. 234; P L D 1969 Kar. 22; P L D 1985 Kar. 400; PLD 1970 S C 139; P L D 1973 Pesh. 95 and I L R 1914 Bom. 381 ref.
Usman Ghani Rashid for Plaintiff.
Mansoor-ul-Arfin for Defendant No.l.
By this application the plaintiff seeks interim relief by issuance of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to pay release third instalment of house building loan amounting to Rs.87,040.
The facts of the case as set out in the affidavit filed by the plaintiff are that the defendants had agreed to grant House Building Loan for construction of a residential house on Plot No.54-A, Gulshan-e -Faisal Society, Bath Island, Karachi which was to be paid to the plaintiff in three instalments of Rs.87,040 each. The defendant withheld the third instalment after payment of two such instalments which according to the averments made by the plaintiff was due to personal malice and vendetta, of defendant No.2. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the defendant No.l, although sanction of loan by .defendant No.1 in favour of the plaintiff has not been denied but the rest of the allegation have been denied.
Mr. Mansoor-ul-Arfin, learned counsel for the defendants has raised a two-fold argument. Firstly, it has been contended that grant of interim relief would tantamount to the grant of final relief claimed in the suit which can very seriously prejudice the defendants. The second argument is that perpetual injunction sought by the plaintiff should not be granted to him as he can, in any case, be compensated by granting of damages. Reliance has been placed by Mr. Mansoor-ul-Arfin on the Election Officer Gujrat v. Abdul Ghani etc. A 1 R 1923 Lah . 47.
Mr. Usman Ghani Rashid on the other hand has argued that refusal of injunction would seriously prejudice the plaintiff as his construction work has been withheld owing to the stoppage of last instalment by the defendant No.l and, therefore, there are circumstances warranting passing of an interim order in his favour. Reliance has been placed by the counsel on P L D 19 3 Kar. 234; P L D 1969 Kar. 22; P L D 1985 Kar. 400; P L D 1970 S C 139; P L D 1973 Pesh. 95 and 1 I, R 1914 Bom. 381.
I am afraid none of the contentions raised by Mr. Usman Ghani Rashid has any force. The plaintiff has sought a permanent mandatory injunction for directing the defendant No.l to release and pay to the plaintiff the last instalment of Rs.87,040, and a declaration that cancellation of House Building Loan to the plaintiff and re-imposition of liability for payment of interest thereon are illegal. Besides that the plaintiff has also claimed Rs.2,00,000 from the defendant No.2 as damages rind further reimbursement in the sum of Rs.8,677. It is, therefore, clear that grant of interim relief to the plaintiff would tantamount to passing of decree in his favour in respect of at least a part of his claim. If such order is passed at this stage and the plaintiff ultimately fails to succeed in his suit the same is bound to prejudice the defendants for which their can be no compensation for them in the future. As against that if the plaintiff succeeds in establishing his case against the defendants he can always be adequately compensated by granting of damages. In fact he has already claimed damages amounting to Rs.2,00,000 from defendant No.2.
I, therefore fully agree with the contention raised by Mr. Mansoor-ul-Arfin and dismiss this application.
H . B . T. /F-2/ K Application dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer