O XXXIX, Rr 1 and 2 Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Section 42 suit provisional injunction for declaration, approval of required components, determination of lead deadlocked by jurisdiction by an unlawful authority Issued was based on an objectionable certificate. Minor charges were levied on the plaintiff in connection with the illegal lease deed which requires due process of action. The affected lease between the government and the defendants is against the State Land Policy, which, after supportive and contradictory evidence, led to the judgment. Need And the case was needed until the final outcome of the case was necessary until the first case was proved. The balance of convenience and irreparable damage that it could have received in the event of a denial of a restraining court did not require a thorough review of the merits of the case, nor did the plaintiff need to establish its own assurance of success. The plaintiff was required to prove it. It had a plausible argument that the court only had to conduct a temporary review of the matter to determine all three components in order to see if the required components were in favor of either party. The public property, in the present case, was going to be stopped. Is. Not only the plaintiff but also the public can be disadvantaged by the defendants in denying the interim injunction, the plaintiff's case is good prima and the balance of the temporary injunction is maintained and the reason for refusing the temporary injunction. becomes. The appellate court correctly granted the temporary injunction in favor of the PLA as well as irreparable harm to the public exchequer. Inappropriate ups
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2015
