Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Plj 1992 Lahore 394 [Rawalpindi Bench] Present Tanvir Ahmad Khan J Agha Muhammad Afzal and 2 others - Petitioners versus Municipal Corporation Rawalpindi and 10 others - Respondents Civil Revision No296 of 1991 dismissed on 1151992 (approved for reporting on 871992) Temporary Injunction Temporary injunction - Grant of - Prayer for - Refusal of - Challenge to - - Petitioners have to prove that they have got a good prima facie case balance of convenience lies in their favour and in case injunction is not granted they will suffer irreparable loss - Courts below have refused to exercise discretion in favour of petitioners - They themselves have been using property in dispute (as tenants) for commercial purposes for many years and now they want that respondents (owners) should not utilize it for commercial purpose - They want different treatment for themselves as compared to respondents - Held Petitioners have got no prima facie case and respondents 2 to 7 would suffer irreparable loss if injunction is granted - Petition dismissed [Pp398399] A Pld 1967 SC 513 Plj 1986 SC 157 Pld 1970 SC 1980 Pld 1981sc 545 Pld 1979 Lahore 671991 Scmr 4831991scmr 496 Pld 1972 SC 2791983 Scmr 1064 Plj 1985 SC 11991 Scmr 429 Air 1974 Orissa 89 (fb) Air 1941 Nagpur 364 Air 1977 Calcutta 174 Air 1952 Calcutta 74 Pld 1982 Kar 940 Air 1968 Bombay 280 and 1992 Clc 345 ref Mr Habibiil Wahabul Kiiairi Advocate for Petitioners Mr Abdul Baseer Qureshi Advocate for Respondent Nol Mr Mahmoodul Hassan Await Advocate for Respondents 2 to 7 Date of heaing 1151992 Judgment Petitioners through this revision petition have assailed the orders dated 2631991 and 1761991 passed respectively by the Civil Judge Rawalpindi and the Additional District Judge Rawalpindi declining to issue restraint order as prayed forBrief facts for the disposal of this revision petition are that the petitioners who are occupying property No NW - 1018 situated at Muree Road Rawalpindi as tenants of respondents No2 to 7 filed a suit for declaration permanent injunction that the building plan sanctioned by respondent Nol on 2511990 for the reconstruction of the above mentioned property is illegalvoid being in contravention to the Master Plan of Rawalpindi city They also sought declaration to the effect that the petitionersplaintiffs being permanent residents of Rawalpindi city are entitled to basic amenities of health and sanitation and respondent Nol is bound to provide the same so as to develope the city of Rawalpindi in accordance with the Master Plan A permanent injunction has also been sought restaining respondent Nol from sanctioning the building plan for the commercial perpose on the Muree Road Rawalpindi The aforestated suit was filed on 1511991 However prior to the filing of this suit respondents No2 to 7 filed an ejectment petition on the 3rd of February 1990 on the ground of reconstruction and personal need against the petitioners qua this very property NoNW - 1018 In this ejectment application the petitioners have also challenged the legality of the sanctioned map on the ground that the same is (in) conflict with the Master Plan of Rawalpindi and issue in this regard has been framed by the learned Rent Controller in the following words - Whether the Municipal Corporation Rawalpindi has any authority to sanction plan of commercial building on a residential site and whether the building plan of the suit premises has been legally and validly approved OPDAlongvvith the declaratory suit the petitioners also filed an application for the interim restraint order to the effect that during the pendency of the suit respondents No2 to 7 be restrained from raising any construction and ejecting the petitioners plaintiffs from the disputed property This petition was controverted by respondent Nol and respondents No 2 to 7 by filing separate written statements as well as replies to the application The Civil Judge Rawalpindi through his order dated 2631991 refused to grant restraint order The petitioners filed an appeal which too was dismissed by the Additional District Judge Rawalpindi through his order dated 1761991 Hence this revision petitionIt is argued by the learned counsel that the two Courts below have failed to appreciate the nature of the case in its true perspective The petitioners have got a good prima - facie case as the proposed construction on the basis of alleged sanctioned plan dated 2511990 is clearly in violation of Master Plan of Rawalpindi which if not restrained would effect the petitioners right adversely It has also been argued that the petitioners would suffer irreparable loss and injury if the construction as alleged is not stopped A challenge has also been thrown to the interim orders dated 171119902911991971991 passed by the Rent Controller Rawalpindi and the order dated 141991 passed by the Additional District Judge Rawalpindi in the ejectment proceedings pending between the petitioners and respondents No2 to 7 to show malafide on the part of the Courts below in the rent proceedingsJudgement Result:Petition dismissed.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.