2010 PLP 558 (MLD)

ABDUL SATTAR GORAYA, J.

By means of this revision petition, the order, dated 8-7-2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Sahiwal has been brought under impeachment. Along with the suit, it appears, an application was filed for grant of temporary injunction whereupon the learned trial Judge on 8-7-2009 passed the following order:-- "Fresh suit, be registered. Along with the suit an application for temporary injunction as well as application for attachment of property of the judgment-debtor has been moved. Arguments heard. Record examined. The plaintiff has filed this suit for recovery of money in which the question of irreparable loss does not arise. Hence, required injunction and order for attachment cannot be issued without considering the written statement by opposite party. Hence, the respondent/defendant be summoned through registered post letter for 19-9-2009."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners bitterly argued that when the suit was registered and an application for grant of temporary injunction has been instituted, it was imperative upon the learned trial Judge either to refuse or to accept the application but by means of impugned order, he has postponed the decision of the application to a date for 19-9-2009.

3. Conversely learned counsel for the respondents argued that the order passed by the learned trial Judge, in circumstances of the case, was absolutely correct.

4. I have considered the arguments of learned counsel for both the parties. 'Available record perused.

5. Merits of the case for the purpose of present decision .are not involved. The scope for the purpose of revision is very limited. This is not to be decided whether an injunction should or should not be issued during the pendency of the suit. All that I have to consider is whether in circumstances of the case, the matter of decision on the application for grant of temporary injunction could be postponed for a date till the submission of the written statement or not? The answer is in the negative. The learned trial Judge had no jurisdiction whatsoever to postpone the decision on the application for grant of temporary injunction. If in such a situation when the matter has been postponed for a date after the long summer vacations, the interim relief should have been granted. The impugned interim order neither gives an impression of a refusal nor acceptance. Till such time the respondents are served, the injunction should have been issued and he could only refuse the temporary injunction after getting reply from the respondents. The impugned order passed by the learned trial Judge is unknown to the scheme of law. Consequently in circumstances of the case it is directed that the learned trial Judge shall decide the application for grant of temporary injunction, even if he has to fix the matter for a shorter date and decide the same on merit. The impugned interim order passed by the learned trial Judge for all purposes is laconic and illegal to the extent it was directed that the decision shall be made after getting written statement from the respondents. It is directed that the learned trial Judge shall attend to the application and pass an appropriate order after getting reply to the application for interim relief brought under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. Till such time the appropriate orders are passed by the learned trial Court Judge, the injunction shall remain operative in the terms prayed for. Revision petition stands disposed of. H.B.T./S-208/L Order accordingly.