Summary: Background: The petitioners, filed a writ petition challenging the dismissal of their application under Order XXXIX, Rule 2(3), C.P.C., by the Civil Judge, Islamabad-West (Respondent No. 3) and the subsequent dismissal of their appeal by the Additional District Judge, Islamabad-West (Respondent No. 2). The petitioners alleged that Respondent No. 1 violated an ad-interim injunction by renting out shops and raising illegal constructions on the suit property. ----Issues: 1- Whether the ad-interim injunction granted on 05.12.2019 and confirmed on 28.01.2021 remained in effect beyond six months without extension. 2- Whether the actions of Respondent No. 1 constituted a violation of the injunction order. Whether the lower courts erred in dismissing the petitioners' application under Order XXXIX, Rule 2(3), C.P.C. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: ---Validity of the Injunction: The ad-interim injunction granted on 05.12.2019 and confirmed on 28.01.2021 had a validity period of six months as per Order XXXIX, Rule 2B, C.P.C. The court found no evidence that the injunction was extended beyond the six-month period. Consequently, the injunction ceased to have effect on 27.07.2021. ---Alleged Violation by Respondent No. 1: The petitioners alleged that Respondent No. 1 violated the injunction by renting out shops and raising illegal constructions. However, Respondent No. 1 contended that only repair work was carried out due to damage from heavy rainfall and that no new construction was undertaken. This stance was supported by an affidavit and was not rebutted by the petitioners. The court noted that the specific language of the injunction order restrained the respondents from alienating the suit property but did not address construction or repairs explicitly. Given the lack of evidence of any illegal construction and the absence of an extension of the injunction, the court found no violation of the injunction order. ---Dismissal of Application Under Order XXXIX, Rule 2(3), C.P.C.: The court upheld the lower courts' decisions, noting that without an active injunction in place at the time of the alleged contempt, there was no basis for contempt proceedings. The dismissal of the application under Order XXXIX, Rule 2(3), C.P.C. was therefore deemed appropriate. -----Citations/Precedents: Government of Pakistan v. Dr. M. Akbar Rajput, 2011 SCMR 1298: Defined 'status quo' as maintaining the situation that existed before a certain event. Syed Muhammad Shah Jehan Shah v. Fazal-ur-Rehman, 1996 CLC 1572 (Peshawar): Established that temporary injunctions automatically expire after six months unless extended by the court. Raja Talat Mahmood v. Ismat Ehtishamul Haq, 1999 SCMR 2215: Clarified that temporary injunctions expire after six months under Order XXXIX, Rule 2B, C.P.C. District Collector, Bannu v. Muhammad Subhan, 2008 CLC 1568 (Peshawar): Reiterated that temporary injunctions must be extended with recorded reasons and reported to the High Court. Muhammad Zahid Naseem Adil v. Muhammad Shafi, 2007 YLR 2190 (Lahore): Confirmed that unextended injunctions cease to exist after six months. Messrs Pfizer Pakistan Limited v. Pharma Plus International, 2022 CLC 1298 (Peshawar): Emphasized the automatic expiration of temporary injunctions after six months without extension.

Summary: In the case presented, the petitioner was awarded a contract by Respondent No. 3 to run a hostelry at the Nishtar Hospital, Multan, but failed to pay the full amount as per the agreement, specifically neglecting to pay taxes. Subsequently, the COVID-19 pandemic led to lockdown measures, impacting the petitioner's ability to operate. The petitioner sought compensation or contract extension due to the lockdown but was declined. A civil suit ensued, resulting in a temporary injunction against some payments, which was later overturned on appeal. The petitioner argued that the pandemic constituted an Act of God, entitling compensation, while Respondent No. 3 contended that the contract lacked provisions for rent waiver during unforeseen circumstances. Taylor v. Caldwell ([1863] 3 B & S 826): This case introduced the doctrine of frustration or impossibility in English Common Law, excusing performance if the subject matter of the contract is destroyed or commercial expectations are frustrated. J. Lauritzen A.S. v. Wijsmuller B.V. (The Super Servant Two) ([1990] 1 Lloydës Rep.1): Sets out five propositions to describe the essence of the doctrine of frustration, emphasizing that it should be invoked only under narrow limits and not due to the party's act or election. Energy Watchdog v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission ([(2017) 14 SCC 80]): Reaffirms the multi-factorial approach in determining frustration and the narrow construction of force majeure clauses. Kadir Bakhsh & Sons v. Province of Sind ([1988 CLC 171]): Defines frustration as applicable when unanticipated circumstances prevent substantial performance of the contract.Abdul Mutaleb v. Mst. Rezia Begum ([PLD 1970 SC 185]): Establishes Section 56 of the Contract Act as a rule of positive law related to frustration, emphasizing its application over English Common Law.Associated Hotels of India Ltd. v. R.N. Kapoor (AIR 1959 SC 1262): Provides principles to differentiate between leases and licenses, emphasizing substance over form and the intention of the parties.Errington v. Errington and another ([1952] 1 All ER 149): Emphasizes that parties cannot turn a lease into a license merely by labeling it as such, focusing on the intentions and conduct of the parties.These legal precedents serve as guiding principles in determining the applicability of frustration and distinguishing between leases and licenses in contractual disputes.

Summary: The petitioners filed a suit against their paternal uncle, the respondent, seeking specific performance of an alleged oral agreement for the sale of a piece of land. The petitioners claimed to have made significant payments as part of the agreement. They also applied for a temporary injunction to prevent the respondent from selling the land or interfering with their possession. However, the court, in its judgment, emphasized the need for a prima facie case, irreparable loss, and a balance of convenience for the grant of a temporary injunction. The court found that the petitioners failed to establish a prima facie case as there was no written agreement, and they did not provide proof of the alleged payments. The court highlighted the importance of convincing and reliable evidence in cases based on oral agreements. As a result, the court dismissed the petition for a temporary injunction, stating that there was no merit in the revision petition.

Summary: Background: The appellant filed a writ petition before the Azad Jammu & Kashmir High Court, asserting ownership and possession over a piece of land identified as Khasra No. 1515 (Shamilat Deh) in Goi, District Kotli. The appellant alleged that the respondents, with the help of revenue officials, interfered with his possession by falsely claiming that the disputed land was part of Khasra Nos. 1466 and 1467 owned by them. The trial court dismissed the appellant’s suit for declaration and temporary injunction, and the first appellate court upheld the decision. The appellant then approached the High Court, which also dismissed his petition, citing the availability of an alternative remedy through an appeal or revision petition. Dissatisfied, the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. -----Issues: 1- Whether the appellant had lawful possession or ownership rights over the disputed shamilat-deh land. ----2- Whether the courts below correctly dismissed the suit under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC, for lack of cause of action. ----3- Whether the High Court’s dismissal of the writ petition on procedural grounds while commenting on the merits of the case was appropriate. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome The Supreme Court found that the appellant failed to provide evidence of ownership or lawful possession of the disputed land (Khasra No. 1515). The demarcation report indicated that the appellant had trespassed onto the land claimed by the respondents, making him an intruder without entitlement to discretionary relief. The court held that the High Court was correct in dismissing the writ petition on the basis that the appellant had an adequate alternative remedy in the form of appeal or revision petition. However, the Supreme Court criticized the High Court for discussing the merits of the case after dismissing the petition on jurisdictional grounds. The Supreme Court modified the judgments of the trial and appellate courts, clarifying that the suit should have been rejected for lack of cause of action under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC, rather than dismissed under The Grant of Khalsa Waste Land as Shamilat Deh Act, 1966. It emphasized that a co-sharer in a village may retain possession of shamilat-deh land until a formal partition takes place if ownership is established, but the appellant failed to provide such evidence. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs. -----Citations/Precedents Order VII, Rule 11, CPC – Rejection of plaint for lack of cause of action. Order XLIII, Rule 5, Azad Jammu & Kashmir Supreme Court Rules, 1978 – Inherent jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The Grant of Khalsa Waste Land as Shamilat Deh Act, 1966 – Rights of co-sharers over shamilat-deh land. Saif Ali vs. Custodian of Evacuee Property and others [1993 SCR 39] – Availability of alternative remedies precluding writ petitions. Zafar Umar Khan & another vs. Agricultural Development Bank and 5 others [1996 SCR 321] – Writ petition dismissed where alternative remedies exist.

Summary: Background:Syed Mazhar Hussain Kazmi, the petitioner/plaintiff, filed a civil revision petition against the judgment/order dated 10-07-2019 passed by the District Judge Gilgit, which dismissed his civil appeal. The appeal was against the judgment/order dated 30-05-2019 passed by the trial court, which rejected the petitioner's application under Order 39 Rule 1&2 CPC for temporary injunction. The petitioner sought to restrain the respondents/defendants from constructing a Government Girls Higher Secondary School on his land.----Issues:Whether the petitioner established a prima facie case for granting a temporary injunction.Whether the balance of convenience favored granting the injunction.Whether the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss if the injunction was not granted.-----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:Justice Ali Baig presided over the case and dismissed the revision petition. The court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a prima facie case in his favor for granting a temporary injunction. It reasoned that the land was required for the up-gradation of a Girls High School to a Higher Secondary School level, and the government had issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894. Therefore, restraining the government from acquiring the land was not permissible. The court also noted that the petitioner would be compensated for the land. Since no material irregularity or illegality was found in the judgments of the lower courts, the revision petition was dismissed.-----Citations/Precedents:Land Acquisition Act 1894Order XXXIX Rule 1&2 CPCSection 52 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894

Summary: Background:In Civil Revision Petition No. 47/2020, the petitioner Naseerullah challenged the judgments/orders dated 06-06-2018 and 25-04-2018 passed by the Additional District Judge Diamer and the Civil Judge Chilas, respectively. The petitioner filed a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction, claiming that he was awarded a contract for the improvement and widening of the KKH to Fairy Meadow road, which he completed, but the respondents failed to hand over the project and return the 10% deposit. The petitioner sought a temporary injunction to prevent the respondents from reissuing the contract.----Issues:Whether the petitioner was entitled to a temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC.Whether the lower courts erred in dismissing the petitioner's application for a temporary injunction.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the lower courts' decisions. The key points of the judgment are:Lack of Evidence: The petitioner failed to provide any written agreement or document showing that he was awarded the contract for the disputed road. The court found no evidence on record to support the petitioner's claim.Stranger to the Contract: The petitioner was deemed a stranger to the contract, as the actual contract was awarded to one Mohammad Amin in 2007. Mohammad Amin allegedly failed to complete the project within the stipulated time.Legal Standing: The petitioner had no locus standi to file the suit against the respondents since he was not a party to the original contract.Prima Facie Case: The petitioner failed to demonstrate a prima facie arguable case, and the balance of convenience was not in his favor. The court concluded that the petitioner would not suffer irreparable loss if the temporary injunction was not granted.Given these findings, the court held that there was no basis for interference with the lower courts' decisions in revisional jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.----Citations/Precedents:Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC (Grant of temporary injunctions)Lack of locus standi and evidence in support of the petitioner's claims

Summary: The respondents filed a suit along with an application for a temporary injunction. The trial court dismissed the application for a temporary injunction and rejected the plaint, citing the remedy provided under the law. The appeal filed by the respondents was accepted, interpreting Section 68 of the Canal and Drainage Act, 1873, to mean that the order of the Sub Divisional Canal Officer was final, making the suit maintainable. This led to the petitioner filing the revision petition. In the judgment, it was noted that Section 68 of the Canal and Drainage Act, 1873, provides for an appeal against the order of the Sub Divisional Canal Officer before the Divisional Canal Officer, and the order of the latter is considered final. Therefore, the observation of the first Appellate Court contradicting this provision was held to be legally unsustainable. It was further held that the trial court had rightly rejected the plaint as premature, given the availability of the right of appeal before the higher forum as provided under the Special Law. The judgment also considered the issue of limitation and found that the time-barred appeal had been entertained without properly addressing the question of limitation. In light of these findings, the instant petition was allowed, the judgment of the first Appellate Court was set aside, and the judgment of the trial court was reinstated. No costs were awarded.

Summary: Background: The petitioner filed a Civil Revision challenging the judgments of the trial and appellate courts, which had dismissed his application for a temporary injunction. The petitioner had initially filed a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction and sought a temporary injunction to prevent the respondent from presenting certain cheques for encashment during the pendency of the suit. Despite the appellate court temporarily restraining the respondent, the cheques were presented for encashment. This prompted the petitioner to file the current revision, alleging illegality and misreading of the record by the lower courts. -----Issues: 1- Whether the trial and appellate courts acted illegally or irregularly in dismissing the petitioner’s application for a temporary injunction. -----2- Whether the petitioner’s claim regarding potential financial loss qualified as irreparable loss warranting a temporary injunction. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Nature of the Dispute: The court found that the core dispute between the parties related to the payment and repayment of an ascertainable amount of money through cheques. Such monetary disputes can be compensated through legal remedies and do not constitute irreparable loss. --Irreparable Loss: The court emphasized that financial loss resulting from the encashment of cheques does not qualify as irreparable loss because monetary claims can be compensated or adjusted during the resolution of the case. --Judgments of Lower Courts: The court determined that both the trial and appellate courts had rightly decided the matter, and their decisions did not exhibit any illegality or irregularity. --Merit of Civil Revision: The court held that the petitioner failed to establish any grounds requiring interference with the judgments of the lower courts. The Civil Revision was dismissed in limine as being devoid of merit. -----Citations/Precedents: The judgment relied on the following principles: Irreparable loss in monetary disputes: Monetary disputes do not justify temporary injunctions as damages can be recovered. No interference in lawful decisions: Higher courts should not interfere with the findings of lower courts unless there is clear illegality or irregularity.

Summary: The petitioner, serving as Assistant Director (Staff) in the Capital Development Authority (CDA), was allotted Suite No. 23 in the Government Hostel, Islamabad. The respondent sought to cancel this allotment, which the petitioner alleged was being done unlawfully and with malafide intent. The petitioner filed a civil suit seeking an injunction to prevent the cancellation. The application for the injunction was initially granted as a status quo order but was later dismissed by the Civil Judge on 30.09.2013. The petitioner’s subsequent appeal to the District Judge was also dismissed on 16.12.2013. Aggrieved by these decisions, the petitioner filed this Civil Revision before the Islamabad High Court. ------ Issues: ------ 1) Whether the respondent’s cancellation of the allotment was lawful and within the scope of its authority. ------ 2) Whether the lower courts erred in dismissing the petitioner’s application for an injunction. ------ 3) Whether the petitioner satisfied the requirements for the grant of an injunction, namely: Prima facie arguable case. Balance of convenience. Irreparable loss. ------ Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Islamabad High Court dismissed the Civil Revision petition. The final show-cause notice issued by the respondent on 06.06.2013 was valid, based on objections raised by the National Assembly regarding the occupancy of the suite. Under Rule 11 of the Federal Government Hostel Rules, 1983, the authority has sole discretion to cancel allotments at any time. The petitioner failed to meet the legal requirements for the grant of an injunction: ------ Prima facie case: The petitioner did not present compelling evidence to support their claim. ------ Balance of convenience: The respondent acted within the framework of the rules and in response to objections raised by the National Assembly. Irreparable loss: The petitioner did not demonstrate that the cancellation would cause significant or irreparable harm. ------ Outcome: The petition was deemed to lack merit and was dismissed. All associated applications were rendered infructuous and disposed of accordingly. ------ Citations/Precedents: Federal Government Hostel Rules, 1983 (Rule 11): Provides the authority with the discretion to cancel allotments. Order 39, Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC): Governs the grant of temporary injunctions and was central to the petitioner’s application.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) ---- O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2 ---- Temporary injunction --- Scope and principles --- Interim relief cannot amount to granting main relief --- Financial loss is not “irreparable loss” --- Held, for grant of interim injunction, three conditions must coexist: (i) prima facie case; (ii) balance of convenience; and (iii) irreparable loss --- Mere apprehension of financial loss does not constitute irreparable injury --- Respondent’s claim that auctioning a new cattle market site would cause him financial loss was speculative and not supported by evidence --- Injunction granted by Trial Court effectively allowed the main relief without trial, contrary to settled law --- Reliance placed on Islamic Republic of Pakistan v. Muhammad Zaman Khan (1997 SCMR 1508) and Qazi Inamul Haq v. Heavy Foundry & Forge Engineering (Pvt.) Ltd. (1989 SCMR 1855) --- Impugned order held to be unsustainable. (b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) ---- S. 42 ---- Declaratory suit challenging auction proceedings --- Maintainability --- Legal character or right to property must be established --- Where plaintiff’s own contractual rights remain unaffected and no legal character is infringed, declaratory relief cannot be sought --- Respondent’s grievance regarding new auction sites did not involve any existing right in property or legal status --- Suit not maintainable under S. 42. (c) Administrative discretion ---- Auction of additional sites for public convenience ---- Judicial restraint ---- Appellant (Metropolitan Corporation Islamabad) within its lawful authority to advertise new sites for cattle markets to accommodate public needs --- Distance of nearly 10 km between existing and new sites demonstrated separate catchment areas --- Decision aimed at facilitating general public and did not violate respondent’s rights --- No mala fide or illegality established --- Judicial interference declined. (d) Civil procedure ---- Interlocutory orders ---- Nature and limits ---- Object of temporary injunction is to maintain status quo, not to create a new situation or pre-empt main relief --- Trial Court’s order staying auction of additional sites virtually decided main controversy without evidence --- Held, improper exercise of discretion and contrary to settled principles. Disposition: Application for impleadment dismissed; appeal allowed; impugned order dated 22.05.2025 set aside; appellant restored to conduct auction in accordance with law.