2019 PLP 27 (MLD)

ALI BAIG, J.

Through this civil revision petition the plaintiff/ petitioner has challenged the impugned judgment/ order dated 06.6.2018 passed by the learned Additional District Judge Diamer whereby the learned 1st appellate court has dismissed civil 1st interlocutory appeal of the present petitioner/plaintiff and has maintained the order dated 25.4.2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge 1st Class Chilas.

1. A brief history of the case is that on 10.2.2018 the petitioner/ plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction before the learned civil Judge 1st Class Chilas against the respondents/defendants claiming that on 29.6.2007 contract of improvement and widening of 8.KM KKH to Fairy Meadow road was awarded to the petitioner. Accordingly the petitioner completed construction work of the aforesaid road as per agreement but the respondents have failed to handing/taking over of the suit road/project and 10 percent deposit has yet not been returned to petitioner/plaintiff. Now the respondents have issued notice for pre qualification of improvement and widening of disputed road on 15.1.2018, which is illegal and ineffective against the rights of the petitioner/plaintiff and liable to be cancelled.

2. The present respondents being defendants in the suit contested the suit by filing their joint written statement in the trial court wherein they have raised certain legal objections. On facts the respondents/ defendants have also denied the claim of the present petitioner/plaintiff by pleading/asserting that no any contract of fairy Meadow road was awarded to the present petitioner nor any agreement between the parties was executed.

3. Along with the plaint the petitioner/plaintiff had also filed an application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1, 2, C.P.C. for grant of temporary injunction. The learned trial court after obtaining replication to the said application and hearing arguments on behalf of both the parties had dismissed the aforesaid application of the present petitioner/plaintiff vide order dated 25.4.2018. The petitioner had challenged the order of the learned trial court dated 25.4.2018 in the court of the learned District Judge Gilgit through civil 1st appeal which was assigned to the learned Additional District Judge Gilgit. The learned Additional District Judge Diamer vide impugned order dated 6.6.2018 has also dismissed civil 1st appeal of the present petitioner, hence this revision petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the impugned judgment/order passed by the learned 1st appellate court is contrary to law and facts on the record of case as such the impugned order passed by the learned 1st appellate court is not maintainable and liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that petitioner has prima facie argue able case, balance of convenience is also in favor of the petitioner/plaintiff and if temporary injunction is not granted in favor of the petitioner there is likelihood to cause irreparable loss to petitioner, therefore, by accepting this revision petition temporary injunction may be granted in favor of the petitioner/plaintiff and against the respondents.

5. Conversely, the learned Additional Advocate General and counsel for the respondents controverted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff and contended that no any contract of the disputed road was awarded to the present petitioner, hence no cause of action is accrued to the petitioner to file a suit against the answering respondents/defendants and suit of the petitioner is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. The learned counsel for the respondents and Additional Advocate General further argued that the petitioner/plaintiff has filed baseless suit against the respondents with mala fide intention as neither any contract of suit road was awarded to the petitioner nor there exist any agreement between the parties regarding construction of the disputed road, hence the petitioner has failed to make out prima facie arguable case, balance of convince is not in favor of the petitioner and if temporary injunction is not granted the petitioner/plaintiff will not suffer irreparable loss.

6. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.

7. From perusal of record it transpires that neither any copy of written agreement regarding awarding of contract of improvement/ widening of existing jeep able road from KKH Raikot to Fairy Medow to the petitioner has been annexed with the plaint nor any other document in the name of the present petitioner is available on the record as such the present petitioner/plaintiff is a stranger and he even cannot file suit against the respondents/defendants. Admittedly the contract of the disputed road was awarded to one Mohammad Amin in the year 2007. The above named contractor has allegedly failed to execute the project within time i.e. till 29-6-2009. The present petitioner is a stranger therefore, he has no locus standi to file the suit against the respondents. Hence the petitioner has failed to demonstrate prima facie arguable case in his favor, balance of connivance is also not in favor of the petitioner and if temporary injunction is not granted the petitioner will not suffer irreparable loss.

8. Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances, I hold that the concurrent findings of both the courts below in respect of factual controversy required no interference by this court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The instant revision petition is devoid of merits, hence dismissed with no order as to costs. File. SA/188/GB Petition dismissed.