Summary: a) A party seeking temporary injunction in his favour is required to establish a good prima facie case, balance of convenience in his favour, in case injunction is not granted he will suffer irreparable loss and lastly conduct of the parties in view of law envisaged under Order 39 Rule 1&2 of C.P.C. 1908. b) The appellant could not take advantage of Article 113 by arguing that the prescribed period for specific performance of contract is 03 years as it is misconceived in view of rule enunciated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case cited as PLD 2016 SC 199, that an agreement between the parties had the status of statute. So when agreed time is expired then contract become voidable upon the option of the parties, so suit for Specific Performance of contract where time is specifically stipulated then the prescribed period of limitation for filing suit is such which is given in the contract. Provision of Article 113 of Limitation Act, 1908.c) when time limit is stipulated in the agreement, in that case the Provisions of Section 55 of Contract Act are attracted.d) From the conduct of the appellant it prima facie transpires that he did not remain vigilant as for getting equitable relief the law aids the vigilant and not the indolent, so the learned trial Court correctly refused interim relief as plaintiff failed to establish his prima facie case. In this respect wisdom is derived in case Mst: Gulshan Hamid Vs Kh. Abdul Rehman & others (2010 SCMR 334).e) preliminary objection of respondents that against the impugned order appeal does not lie and is a revisable order, is concerned, suffice is to say that impugned order has been passed in view of Order 39 Rule 1&2 of C.P.C which is appealable order under Order 43 Rule 1 of C.P.C. So, the objection is not valid, hence is repelled. In this respect reliance is placed on 2008 CLC 930.

Summary: Granting interim relief/ temporary injunction by this court cannot issue a license to a student to appear in the examination without depositing of annual dues outstanding against him nor it has been mentioned in the said interim order that petitioners would attend classes and appear in the examination without deposit of requisite fee.It has clearly been mentioned in the said Interim Order that the petitioners would sit in the examination at their own risk and cost.

Summary: Customs Act (IV of 1969)--- ----Ss.18(3), 30, 79, 104 & 131---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss.42 & 54---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2---Notification S.R.O. 18(I)/2015, dated 14-1-2015---Suit for declaration and injunction---Interim injunction, grant of---Rate of duty---Determination---Principle---Plaintiffs imported goods from foreign supplier under contract executed prior to issuance of Notification S.R.O. 18(I)/2015, dated 14-1-2015---Plea raised by plaintiffs was that authorities be restrained from applying/deducting regulatory duty in terms of notification S.R.O. 18(I)/2015, dated 14-1-2015---Validity---Manner and method of date of determination of rate of duty on goods imported into Pakistan were subject to Ss.79 & 104 of Customs Act, 1969, and date of determination of rate of duty on goods exported was subject to provisions of S.131 of Customs Act, 1969---Imposition and collection of regulatory duty on "import" and "export" was different and distinct and no analogy could be drawn for interpreting the provision of one section of the statute with the other section in the same statute by referring to case-law dealing with one particular levy---Provisions of notification S.R.O. 18(I)/2015, dated 14-1-2015, were applicable on shipments of plaintiffs in terms of S.30 of Customs Act, 1969, irrespective of the fact that plaintiffs had entered into contract for purchase of consignments with foreign suppliers and opened letter of credits prior to 14-1-2015---High Court declined to grant interim injunction against applicability of notification S.R.O. 18(I)/2015, dated 14-1-2015---Suit was dismissed in circumstances.

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: Background: The case involves a civil revision challenging orders dated October 3, 2013, and January 13, 2014, by the Civil Judge and the District Judge (West) Islamabad, respectively. These orders vacated an ad-interim injunction granted to the petitioner and dismissed the subsequent appeal. The petitioner, a contractor, was awarded a tender for supplying explosive detectors for the Supreme Court Building. However, concerns were raised by the end-user regarding the functionality and specifications of the equipment supplied. Subsequent meetings led to a decision to seek alternative equipment, and the petitioner was held liable for recovery of a specified amount. The petitioner contested this through a suit seeking declaratory, permanent, and mandatory injunctions, along with an application for interim relief. -----Issues: 1- Whether the petitioner supplied the equipment in accordance with the specifications provided in the Bill of Quantities (BoQ). -----2- Whether the interim relief granted initially should have been vacated. -----3- Whether the petitioner suffered irreparable loss due to the impugned orders. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court dismissed the petition in limine on the following grounds: The petitioner failed to substantiate that the equipment was supplied in line with the specified requirements. The record suggested that upgradation of the equipment could have met the required standards. The supplied equipment was not the only make and model specified in the BoQ; alternatives were also permissible to fulfill the purpose of detecting various types of explosives. The brochure accompanying the supplied equipment specified its capabilities, which required further inquiry through evidence. The warranty period had not expired, and the impugned letter's scope was limited to the specified amount, indicating no irreparable loss to the petitioner.

Summary: Rejection or grant of interim injunction cannot affect the applicability of doctrine of 'lis pendens'

Summary: O.39,R-1-2(b) CPC:Requirements/ingredients for granting temporary injunction--prima facie case established

Summary: The background of the case is that the petitioners filed a suit for declaration against respondents No.1 to 6 before the learned Senior Civil Judge. They also filed an application for the grant of a temporary injunction, which was allowed by the learned trial Court. The respondents appealed this order before the learned Additional District Judge, Rahim Yar Khan, who allowed the appeal, rejecting the plaint of the suit filed by the petitioners under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). In this revision petition, the petitioners argue that the learned Appellate Court erred in rejecting the plaint based on technicalities without properly considering the documentary evidence on which their claim is based. They contend that the rejection of the plaint in this manner has deprived them of valuable rights. The learned Additional District Judge, in this case, has noted that the Appellate Court was not competent to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC while dealing with an appeal against the acceptance of an application for a temporary injunction. The learned judge cites several judgments supporting this proposition and sets aside the impugned judgment, remanding the matter back to the learned Additional District Judge, Rahim Yar Khan, for fresh decision in accordance with the law.

Summary: [Scope of Civil Procedure Code CPC (O.XXXIX, Rule.1 & 2 Interim Injunction)] For the purpose of existence or absence of a prima facie case in relation to exercise underOrder XXXIX rules 1 & 2, facts canvassed by both sides have to be examined and it is onpreponderance of facts as based on documentary material and averments in the way of affidavitsthat concept of arguable case has to be determined. In addition, while deciding application underOrder XXXIX rules 1&2 CPC, Court is required to travel beyond four corners of plaint todetermine, though tentatively, as to on what facts, finding is to be based. Thus spectrum of OrderXXXIX rules 1 & 2 CPC is broader and more comprehensive

Summary: O.XXXIX,R-1,2,S.12,42,54 SRA:Temporary Injunction--grant of--three basic ingredients not fulfilled--temporary Injunction refused