1994 PLP 2024 (SCMR)

‑‑‑‑S.' 55‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185‑‑‑Grant of interim mandatory injunction by High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction without hearing opposite side‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑High Court appeared to have acted in haste in the issuance of such injunction without affording opportunity of hearing to opposite side‑‑‑Order in question, was, thus not sustainable‑‑ Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and while allowing the same, Supreme Court set aside order in question‑‑‑Main revision was, however, directed to be disposed of as early as possible. MA.' Naser v. Chairman, Pakistan Eastern Railways PLD 1965 SC Tanvir Bashir Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court and Imtiaz M. Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. M. Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents. Date of hearing: 22nd November, 1993. WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.‑‑‑Cantonment Board, Rawalpindi and another, petitioners herein, seek leave to appeal against the judgment dated 24‑7‑1993 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court Rawalpindi Bench, whereby on the admission of the Civil Revision No. 300/93 filed by Muhammad Yaqoob and others, the respondents were allowed to carry on their business under the old licence subject to the deposit of licence fee under the said licence by directing the petitioners to allow them to deposit licence fee. We have heard Mr. Tanvir Bashir Ansari, Advocate, for the petitioners; Mr. Muhammad Munir Peracha, Advocate, for the respondents; and have perused the available record of the case. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that at the time of the institution of the suit by the respondents, the licences issued to them had already expired and that the learned High Court had no power or jurisdiction to order their renewal or allowing the respondents to continue with their business on the expired licences. The respondents' suit for permanent injunction was dismissed by the trial Court and the appeal preferred against it was also dismissed by the learned District Judge. The High Court in revision without affording proper opportunity to the petitioners, could not allow the respondents to carry on their business on the expired licences. Reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in case MA. Naser v. Chairman, Pakistan Eastern Railways (PLD 1965 Supreme Court 83). The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the means of livelihood of so many families being involved, the impugned order of the High Court is just and equitable and does not call for interference. Be that as it may, the learned High Court appears to have acted in, haste in the issuance of ad interim mandatory injunction without hearing the opposite side and considering the legal aspect of the case. The impugned order is; therefore, not sustainable. We accordingly, convert this petition into appeal and by allowing the same, set aside the impugned order of the High Court. However, it is directed that the main revision petition may be disposed of as early as possible preferably within one month. A.A./C‑137/S Appeal accepted.