1985 PLP 443 (MLD)

(c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

O. VII, r.11 and S.115--Revision--Rejection of plaint--Effect--Plea of party that Courts below had decided whole case while rejecting plaint, held, could be considered by High Court in revision application at its regular hearing. (d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

O. XLVII, r. 1--Review--Where there was no mistake or error on face of record, review application, held, was not competent. Syed Ahmed Farooqui for Applicant. Date of hearing: 11th November, 1984. This is a Review Application under Order XLVII, rule 1 read with section 151, C.P.C. 1 have heard Mr. Syed Ahmad Farooqui, learned counsel for the applicant at some length. In support of this application he has relied on two decisions reported as Mansur Ahmad v. Kalipada Chattopadhya and others P L D 1959 Dacca 498 and Mian Muhammad Latif v. Province of West Pakistan through the Deputy Commissioner, Khairpur and another P L D 1970 S C 180.

2. These decisions relate to the principles for the grant of interim injunctions. There cannot be any cavil on the proposition that for the grant of interim injunction the applicant must show that he has a prima facie case in his favour. The applicants admit that an area admeasuring 1828.69 sq.yds. in Block-7 situated in Scheme No. 16 of Plot No. Street 11/11/1 was owned by K.D.A. which was leased out to the applicant's father, Chowdhary Ali Muhammad for 10 years for Nursery purposes which has expired in the year 1976 .and there is no further lease/allotment in favour of the applicants. The applicants made and application to the K.D.A., for leasing out the said plot to them which has been rejected by the K.D.A. and so the appeal. There is, therefore, no subsisting agreement between the applicants and K.D.A. for which specific performance can be sought by the applicants. No violation of the applicants' right can, therefore, be attributed to the K.D.A. In the circumstances no relief for injunction can be granted to the applicants.

3. As already held by me that in the facts and circumstances o the case the two Courts below were justified in holding that the applicant/plaintiff has no prima facie cure in his favour as there is n illegality or material irregularity in passing the said orders: I had, therefore, found no merit for the admission of Revision Application on the ground of refusal to the grant of interim injunction by the Courts below.

4. The grievance of the applicants that the learned Courts below have decided the whole case will be considered at the time of regular hearing of this Revision Application, admitted by me against the order passed by the learned Courts below under Order VII, rule 11 rejecting the plaint.

5. No new ground has been urged by the learned counsel for the applicants nor any new fact has been alleged by him which was not within his knowledge at the time of passing of the orders dated 18-10-1984. There is no mistake or error apparent on the face of record. I am, therefore, of the view that the provisions of Order XLVII, rule 1, C.P.C. are not attracted in this case. The Review Application is therefore, dismissed in limine. A.A. Review application dismissed.