Find a Lawyer

Civil Revision No.1413 of 1986, decided on 21st June, 1986.

---O.XXXIX, Rr.l & 2--Temporary injunction, grant of--Basic conditions for--Before temporary injunction could be granted - to petitioner seeking such injunction, he had to show (i) that there was prima facie case in his favour; (ii) that balance of convenience was in his favour; (iii) that he was likely to suffer irreparable injury due to withholding of temporary injunction--Petitioner showing only prima facie case in his favour, but not fulfilling other two conditions qua balance of convenience and irreparable injury, held, would not. be entitled to temporary injunction.

Province of the Punjab v. Ch. Fazal Karim, District Judge, Faisalabad and 5 others 1983 C L C 325 and Deputy Director (Nationalization), Hyderabad v. Syed Zahoorul Hassan 1982 C L C 1640 ref.

Muhammad Aslam Riaz for Petitioner.

Facts leading to this civil revision, as stated by learned counsel for the petitioner, Ch. Ali Akbar, are that the petitioner is owner of certain land. He leased out that land to respondent No. 5, Sh. Bashir Ahmad, for setting up an Ice Factory. Subsequently, respondent No.5 sublet the said land to respondent No.4, Rana Muhammad Zafar Khan, Advocate. Respondent No.4 established a High School on the said land which was ultimately nationalized in 1972 on the coming into force of Martial Law Regulation No.118. Respondents Nos.l to 3 are the Province of Punjab; Director of Schools, Faisalabad Region, Faisalabad; and Headmaster, Government District Public High School, Narwala Bungalow, District Faisalabad, which is now functioning on the land in question. The said respondents were defendants in the suit brought by the petitioner for possession of the land in dispute. He also prayed for a decree for arrears of rent payable to him. Alongwith the suit, the petitioner filed an application for grant of temporary injunction restraining respondents Nos.l to 3 from making any construction on the land in dispute. The application was dismissed by a Civil Judge. The petitioner went in appeal before an Additional District Judge but in vain. He has, therefore, come up in revision to his Court.

2. While dismissing the petitioner's appeal, it was stated by the learned Additional District Judge that the property in dispute stood transferred to the Education Department under the said Regulation. In view of the statement made before him by Mr. Qamar-uz-Zaman, Assistant Director, Education Department, it was also noted by the learned Additional District Judge that the old building was being reconstructed and that funds would lapse if injunction was granted. According to the learned Additional District Judge, Education Department would face inconvenience if the injunction was granted but the suit ultimately failed.. In his opinion, the petitioner was not likely to suffer irreparable, injury in the absence of temporary injunction because his suit was for possession of the property and respondents Nos.l to 3 were raising construction at their own risk.

3. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the disputed property did not vest in the Government due to the taking over the school under the said Regulation .and, therefore, the view taken by the learned Additional District Judge that the said property stood transferred to the Education Department was not sustainable. In this connection, reliance is placed by him on Province of the Punjab v. Ch. Fazal Karim, District Judge, Faisalabad and 5 others 1983 C L C 325 and Deputy Director (Nationalization), Hyderabad v. Syed Zahoorul Hassan 1982 C L C 1640. These precedent cases support the view expressed by the learned Counsel.

4. Before temporary injunction could be granted to the petitioner he had to show that there was a prima facie case in his favour, the balance of convenience tilted on his side and that he was likely to suffer irreparable injury due to the withholding of the temporary injunction. In view of the authorities cited by the learned counsel, feel that the petitioner has a prima facie case but I am not inclined to believe that the balance of convenience is also in his -favour. Admittedly, a High School is functioning at the disputed place. i have been informed by the learned counsel that the old building of the school has been demolished and the new one is going to be constructed in its place. If construction of the new building is stopped, lot of inconvenience will be caused not only to the staff but also to the students, for an indefinite period. They are also likely t suffer irreparable injury due to the absence of the building. The petitioner's case, therefore, satisfies one of the said three conditions but not others. He is, therefore, not entitled to the temporary injunction prayed for by him. In this view of the matter, orders under challenge do not call for any interference by this Court.

5. There is no force in this revision. It is dismissed in limine.

H.B.T./A-58/L Temporary injunction refused.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.