1986 PLP 2520 (MLD)

Muhammad Arif for Respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 in person. Date of hearing: 26th, 30th June and 10th July, 1985. Petitioner, claiming himself to be a Transporter by profession, filed a suit on 3‑12‑1984 for permanent injunction to restrain the respondents from interfering with his use of the place allocated in the General Bus Stand, Faisalabad for the buses plying on Faisalabad Sialkot route and to also prohibit them from recovering illegal tax from him. His case is that both he and defendant No.1, Raja Khushi Muhammad, run their buses for Sialkot on the basis of regular route‑permits but he is being unlawfully obstructed from the use of the place in the Bus Stand for his buses plying under the name Shaukat Ali Brother Bus Service. In his suit, he also applied for a temporary injunction to the same effect being passed to remain in force till the decision of his suit. Defendants contested the suit and also resisted the grant of temporary injunction. In the written statements, while denying the claim of the petitioner, reliance was also placed on a compromise arrived at with the petitioner's father wherein certain terms were settled to resolve the dispute arisen between the parties. The suit is still under trial. Learned Civil Judge proceeded to issue the desired temporary injunction by his order, dated 20‑1‑1985 wherein he came to the conclusion that the compromise relied upon by the defendants was illegal and did not bind the plaintiff who was held to have a good case and the balance of convenience was also found to lie in his favour for the reason that in the event of his being not permitted to ply his buses, he would suffer irreparable loss to be deprived of his means of livelihood. An appeal thereagainst was filed by Raja Khushi Muhammad respondent No.1 which has been accepted by a learned Additional District Judge to vacate the temporary injunction with the conclusion that the petitioner‑plaintiff is not an owner of any bus with a route permit to entitle him to the use of the Bay for Sialkot, therefore, he would not have a prima facie case. Balance of convenience was also decided against the petitioner with the finding that neither is he the owner of any bus nor is a route permit issued in his name and, therefore, in the event of refusal of injunction he would not suffer loss. Plaintiff has now come up to this Court on revision.

2. His learned counsel contended that learned Additional District Judge has not exercised his jurisdiction in accordance with law in disregarding the case set up by the parties in para. 5 of their pleadings and also ignoring the admission of respondent No.2 in his written statement. Upon perusing the pleadings, I have not been able to bring myself round to accept the foregoing contention because in para. 1 of his plaint the petitioner has asserted that his buses, as well as those of defendant No. 1, are plying for Sialkot on the basis of regular route permits 'and in para. 5 thereof he has gone on to allege that he and his father are Transporters of standing and have been carrying on their business of Transport under the name of style "Shaukat Ali Brother" ............Respondents' written statement that the plaintiff's father Muhammad Shafi has four buses plying on this route and in para.5 thereof he has submitted that it is correct that the plaintiff and his father have a few buses but he has denied the remaining para as being incorrect and baseless. Even respondent No.2 in his separate written statement has denied that any buses may have been plying under the name and style 'Shaukat Brothers'. Respondent No.2 has also pleaded that there are Bays allotted at the General Bus Stand in accordance with the route permits and only the holders of relevant route permits can use those Bays. Today, a copy of Letter No.S‑III/14‑(6)/80 (Vol.II), dated 31st May, 1982 issued by the Government of Punjab Local Government and Rural Development Department to the Mayors of Municipal Corporations, Lahore, Rawalpindi, Multan, Sargodha and Faisalabad has been produced wherein the duties and functions of the Administrators of General Bus Stands maintained by the Municipal Corporations are specified. The relevant powers appear to be contained in clauses (ii), (iv) and (v) thereof,, which are reproduced:‑ "(ii) to decide as to how many buses will operate from a particular bay. (iii) ... . ... ... ... ... ... ... .. ... ... ... (iv) to decide which is to be managed by the employees of the Municipal Corporation and which can be left to the private management. (v) to regulate the timings of the buses on a particular bay." It is not disputed that in exercise of the foregoing powers, the Administrator of the General Bus Stand has, by his letter bearing No.58‑GBSICORP, dated 21‑2‑1984, assigned the management of Bay No.24 to Raja Khushi Muhammad respondent No.1 for the buses plying between Sialkot and Faisalabad.

3. The basic question involved in this dispute is as to whether the plaintiff owns any bus or possesses the route‑permit to ply it on the Sialkot‑Faisalabad route? Whereas learned Additional District Judge ha concluded against the petitioner with regard to both the ownership of buses and possession of route‑permits, learned Civil Judge did not at all advert to these questions and he proceeded to issue the temporary injunction by merely denouncing the agreement relied upon by the defence as not binding on the plaintiff.‑In Sui Gas Transmission Company v. Sui Gas Employees' Union and others 1977 S C M R 220, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have disapproved the practice of determining the question of grant of temporary injunction upon considering the pleas raised in defence of the suit. There is no doubt that learned trial Judge acted illegally in the exercise of his discretionary jurisdiction to proceed in disregard of the rule laid down by the Supreme Court. Petitioner himself was in attendance today and I required his learned counsel to mention the registration numbers of the buses registered in the name of the petitioner upto the date of institution of the suit and to also show‑ me the relevant route permits. After consulting the petitioner, learned counsel. frankly stated that until that day there was no bus as such registered in the name of the petitioner who did not have any route permit in his own name. He also explained that the petitioner was a de facto owner of four buses which he had secured from others under verbal hire‑purchase agreements and he has bee plying them under the name and style "Shaukat Ali Brothers" upto the institution of the suit. Since the‑ plaintiff‑petitioner did not have either the registration of any bus or a route permit in his own name, therefore. he cannot have any legal right to insist "upon the use of the Genera Bus Stand and as much, cannot be said to have a prima facie case in his favour. Such is also the conclusion reached by the learned Additional District Judge who has, in the appeal rather corrected the trial Court's exercise of discretionary jurisdiction in accord with the well‑settled principles governing such cases. Muchless, may he have acted either arbitrarily or fancifully in the exercise of discretionary power. Therefore; as has been held in Shahzada Muhammad Umar Beg v. Sultan Muhammad Khan and another P L D 1970 S C 139 re‑affirmed in Kanwal Nain and 3 others v. Fateh Khan and others P L D 1983 S C 53, the order passed in the appeal below is not amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

4. Upshot of the foregoing is that there is no case made out for exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Civil Revision is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. H.B.T. Revision dismissed.