1986 PLP 174 (MLD)

‑‑S.155 & O.XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2‑‑Interim orders‑‑Application for‑ Interference by High Court in revisional jurisdiction‑‑Both courts below while considering application .for interim order, exercised their vested discretion and disposed it of in manner deem fit under circumstances of case‑‑Nothing was pointed out that while passing orders on application, two Courts had acted in exercise of their jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularities‑‑Even assuming that orders passed by two Courts below were erroneous, interference by High Court in its revisional jurisdiction, held, would not be justified with exercise of discretion of Courts below. Abdul Latif A. Shakoor for Applicants. Arif Hussain for Respondents. The case of the applicants is that they had borrowed Rs.3,41,000 from the three respondents and executed three promissory notes and two Iqrar Namas in favour of the respondents. It is then alleged that the respondents later on realising that the promissory notes were not properly stamped started resorting to coercive methods with aid of the police for the recovery of the amount in question. It is further alleged that on account of such coercive methods adopted by the respondents in collusion with the police the applicants were forced to pay Rs.20,000 to the respondents. Faced with this situation, the applicants filed a suit in the Court of Vth Senior Civil Judge, West Karachi, inter alia, praying therein for a permanent injunction to restrain the respondents from resorting to illegal or unlawful practices for recovery of the amount in question. The applicants also filed an application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C.; praying for interim orders, pending final disposal of the suit. The application was dismissed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, vide his order, dated 21‑9‑1985. The reasons stated by the learned Senior Civil Judge are that reporting of matter to the police for legal action is not an illegal act and further that only one such incident had been mentioned by the applicants which was not sufficient to create apprehension in the minds of the applicants that the respondents would be resorting further to such action. On the basis of this the learned Senior Civil Judge concluded that the applicants had failed to make out a prima facie case for issuance of interim injunction under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. The applicants then filed appeal before the Second Additional District Judge, West Karachi who vide order, dated 24‑9‑1985 granted ad-interim injunction to the applicants but subject to their furnishing surety in the sum of Rs. 3,00,000 within five days. I have heard Mr. Abdul Latif Shakoor on behalf of the applicants and Mr. Arif Hussain who appeared on pre‑admission notice on behalf of the respondents. Nothing has been shown by Mr. Abdul Latif Shakoor that while passing the impugned orders, the two Courts below have acted in the exercise of their jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. The learned Civil Judge while considering the applicants' application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. was vested with discretion to dispose of such application in a manner he deemed fit under the circumstances of the case. He exercised such discretion by dismissing such application for which the reasons have been recorded by him. When the matter went before the learned Additional District Judge in appeal, he also exercised discretion while granting the stay application filed by the applicants taut subject to their furnishing surety in the sum of Rs. 3,00,

000. Mr. Abdul Latif Shakoor, the learned counsel for that applicants has not been able to point out to me any illegality in the orders of the two Courts below. However, even assuming, that the orders passed by the two Courts below are erroneous that, should still fail to justify interference by this Court with the exercise of discretion by the learned Courts below in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Under the circumstances this revision application is completely misconceived and as such it is dismissed in limine. H . B . T . Revision application dismissed.