1984 PLP 422 (CLC)
MUHAMMAD IQBAL‑Petitioner Versus THE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS‑Respondents
| Citation | 1984 PLP 422 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Mahboob Ahmad, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD IQBAL‑Petitioner Versus THE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | JUDGMENT |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 422 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: JUDGMENT as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 422 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Mahboob Ahmad, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 422 (CLC) (MUHAMMAD IQBAL‑Petitioner Versus THE AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Petitioner.
- Raja Muhammad Akram for Respondent No. 1.
- Raasat Ali for Respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5.
- Date of hearing :18th June; 1983.
- 9. The learned counsel for respondent No. 1 who has put in appearance in C. M. No. 5081/C of 1980 submitted that the petitioner had failed to pay the instalments as stipulated and, therefore, the respondent Bank was justified in making recovery of the total amount payable by him.
- 10. The next submission of the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 was that it is well‑settled that by recovery of an amount no irreparable loss is caused to the party having a grievance against the recovery and as such the essential ingredient for grant of temporary injunction was not made out, which was the main factor that weighed with the Courts below in refusing to grant injunction to the petitioner.
- 11. The last contention of the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 was that the conduct of the petitioner otherwise also disentitled him from getting any relief in that he obtained the status quo order from this Court by misrepresenting that the Bank had started the recovery procee dings notwithstanding the pendency of the application of the petitioner which was made to the Bank as indicated in the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge. It was urged that no such application has ever been made by the petitioner nor has he paid a single penny towards payment of the loan despite the position that the year 1.983 has commenced, which according to the petitioner himself is the last year for repayment of the loan.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑ ‑‑ O. XXXIX, rr. 1 & 2 and S. 115‑Temporary injunction- Recovery of money‑No irreparable loss‑Balance of convenience also missing‑Three conditions viz. existence of a prima facie case, irreparability of loss and balance of convenience, held, must co‑exist‑Two conditions irreparability of loss and balance of convenience, not fulfilled‑Courts below, held, justified in rejecting application for injunction. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑ ‑‑ O. XXXIX, rr. 1 & 2 and S. 115‑Revision petition‑Injunc tion ‑ Petitioner obtaining status quo order by stating that Bank had started recovery proceedings notwithstanding pendency of his application made to Bank-Non‑making of application asserted by a responsible officer of bank and not controverted by petitioner‑Lack of bona fide of petitioner, held, established and same supplemented by fact of his not paying single penny towards loan‑.Application for grant of injunction not accepted. This revision calls in question judgment. dated 7th July. 1980 delivered by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore.
2. The facts necessary for the purposes of this revision, briefly stated are that the action of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 is premature, contrary to law and procedure and the sale‑deed, dated 27th January, 197.7 is altogether void and ineffective on the rights of the plaintiff and the plaintiff be declared still owner of the property in dispute with the consequential relief that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 be permanently restrained to adopt any coercive measures against the petitioner‑plaintiff.
3. Alongwith the plaint, the petitioner also made an application under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2, C. P. C. for a temporary injunction restraining the respondents from recovering the amount its dispute from the petitioner.
4. The learned trial Court, by its order, dated 6th November, 1979, dismissed the application of the petitioner for grant of temporary injunction.
5. Against this order of the trial Court the petitioner preferred an appeal to the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore who dismissed the appeal by his judgment, dated 7th July, 1980.
6. Feeling dissatisfied the petitioner has come up to this Court in the present revision petition.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the loan which is sought to be recovered was repayable in instalments payable upto 1983 and as. such recovery thereof could not be initiated before the expiry of the last date by which the loan could be repaid.
8. It was next urged that recovery of the loan by the respondent is in disregard of the terms and conditions on which the same was granted and as such the petitioner‑plaintiff has a strong prima facie case. The Courts below have therefore erred in law in not allowing the applica tion of the petitioner for grant of temporary injunction.
12. Having given consideration to the controversy involved I find that the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner have no force.
13. There ought not to be any cavil with the proposition that no irreparable loss will be caused to any party by recovery of money. Thai being so, an essential ingredient for grant of temporary injunction is lacking in the case of the petitioner. The petitioner has also not been able to show as to how the balance of convenience lies in his favour. It is well‑settled that for grant of temporary injunction the three conditions viz., (i) existence of a prima facie case. (ii) irreparability of loss, and (iii) balance of convenience,. must co‑exist. In the case in hand, two of the conditions being no fulfilled by the petitioner he was obviously not entitled to the grant o any temporary injunction and the Courts below were justified in rejecting his application and appeal respectively.
14. The non‑making of the application by the petitioner to the Bank which position has been asserted by a responsible officer of the Bank and not controverted by the petitioner also establishes lack of bona fides of the petitioner which is supplemented by the fact that the petitioner has not repaid a single penny towards the loan till date.
15. In view of the foregoing discussion I find no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. With the dismissal of this revision C. M. Nos. 5081‑C/80, 536‑C/81, 686‑C/81 and 1656‑C/81 also stand disposed of. M. Y. H. Petition dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
3. Alongwith the plaint, the petitioner also made an application under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2, C. P. C. for a temporary injunction restraining the respondents from recovering the amount its dispute from the petitioner.
4. The learned trial Court, by its order, dated 6th November, 1979, dismissed the application of the petitioner for grant of temporary injunction.
5. Against this order of the trial Court the petitioner preferred an appeal to the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore who dismissed the appeal by his judgment, dated 7th July, 1980.
6. Feeling dissatisfied the petitioner has come up to this Court in the present revision petition.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the loan which is sought to be recovered was repayable in instalments payable upto 1983 and as. such recovery thereof could not be initiated before the expiry of the last date by which the loan could be repaid.
8. It was next urged that recovery of the loan by the respondent is in disregard of the terms and conditions on which the same was granted and as such the petitioner‑plaintiff has a strong prima facie case. The Courts below have therefore erred in law in not allowing the applica tion of the petitioner for grant of temporary injunction.
9. The learned counsel for respondent No. 1 who has put in appearance in C. M. No. 5081/C of 1980 submitted that the petitioner had failed to pay the instalments as stipulated and, therefore, the respondent Bank was justified in making recovery of the total amount payable by him.
10. The next submission of the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 was that it is well‑settled that by recovery of an amount no irreparable loss is caused to the party having a grievance against the recovery and as such the essential ingredient for grant of temporary injunction was not made out, which was the main factor that weighed with the Courts below in refusing to grant injunction to the petitioner.
11. The last contention of the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 was that the conduct of the petitioner otherwise also disentitled him from getting any relief in that he obtained the status quo order from this Court by misrepresenting that the Bank had started the recovery procee dings notwithstanding the pendency of the application of the petitioner which was made to the Bank as indicated in the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge. It was urged that no such application has ever been made by the petitioner nor has he paid a single penny towards payment of the loan despite the position that the year 1.983 has commenced, which according to the petitioner himself is the last year for repayment of the loan.
12. Having given consideration to the controversy involved I find that the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner have no force.
13. There ought not to be any cavil with the proposition that no irreparable loss will be caused to any party by recovery of money. Thai being so, an essential ingredient for grant of temporary injunction is lacking in the case of the petitioner. The petitioner has also not been able to show as to how the balance of convenience lies in his favour. It is well‑settled that for grant of temporary injunction the three conditions viz., (i) existence of a prima facie case. (ii) irreparability of loss, and (iii) balance of convenience,. must co‑exist. In the case in hand, two of the conditions being no fulfilled by the petitioner he was obviously not entitled to the grant o any temporary injunction and the Courts below were justified in rejecting his application and appeal respectively.
14. The non‑making of the application by the petitioner to the Bank which position has been asserted by a responsible officer of the Bank and not controverted by the petitioner also establishes lack of bona fides of the petitioner which is supplemented by the fact that the petitioner has not repaid a single penny towards the loan till date.
15. In view of the foregoing discussion I find no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. With the dismissal of this revision C. M. Nos. 5081‑C/80, 536‑C/81, 686‑C/81 and 1656‑C/81 also stand disposed of. M. Y. H. Petition dismissed.