2011 PLP 1717 (YLR)

ATTAULLAH KHAN J.

Through this revision petition, petitioner has impugned the judgment/orders 3-3-2011 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Lakki Marwat vide which the appeal of petitioner was dismissed and maintained the order passed by learned Civil Judge, Lakki Marwat dated 11-2-2011 vide which the application filed by petitioners for temporary injunction was dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner heard in motion. Record on file perused in the light of which my discussion is as under.

3. The suit was filed by plaintiff/ petitioner against Chairman NHA etc., for declaration, permanent, prohibitory and mandatory injunction to the effect that he is owner in possession of the disputed property and the defendants/respondents have no right to construct bridge and it would cause loss to their shops and plot. He also prayed for permanent/mandatory injunction. The plaintiff/petitioner also filed an application for grant of temporary injunction with his plaint. The defendants/respondents contested the suit/application by filing their written statement and replication. The trial Court after hearing counsel of the parties, dismissed the same vide order dated 11-2-2011. The said order was impugned by the plaintiff/petitioner before the appellate Court, who also dismissed the same.

4. It is an admitted fact as per record that the defendants/respondents (NHA) if construct the bridge it would not damage the property of the plaintiff/petitioner. The plaintiff/petitioner has annexed a site plan of the market with his plaint. Its perusal reveals that it is not official document but a privately made which has no sanctity. Moreover, it would not prove that the construction of the bridge would cause loss to the property of the plaintiff/petitioner.

5. For grant of temporary injunction three ingredients are necessary to be proved by the plaintiff/petitioner which includes a prima facie good case, irreparable loss and balance of convenience. All these three ingredients are not available in this case. Moreover, an injunction cannot be granted under section 56 (d) of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 when it relates to interference with the public duties of any government. The provision of section 56 (d) ibid is reproduced below:- "

56. Injunction when refused: An injunction cannot be granted-- (a)

(b)

(c)

(d) to interfere with the public duties of any department of the Federal Government or any Provincial Government; or with the sovereign acts of Foreign Government."

6. Normally temporary injunction could not be granted without resort to other relevant consideration and if injunction is issued it would interfere into public duties which are not permissible. Mere filing a declaratory suit and application would not entitle the plaintiff/petitioner for issuance of status quo order from the Court. It is to be proved that if act is not stayed it would cause damage. There is nothing on record to establish this factum. The balance of inconvenience also does not lie in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner for granting status quo order because the bridge is planned to be constructed by the defendants/respondent in advance for which funds have been issued and if it is stayed it would cause inconvenience to the government department. Even otherwise in matter of temporary injunctions, a prima facie case is not the only requirement, because a Court is also required to examine the concepts of balance of convenience and irreparable loss. For determination of all these factors, conduct of the parties and facts of suit are to be kept in mind. The aim of grant of stay should be to prevent recurrence of a future injury, if any.

7. In the light of above discussion, the plaintiffs/petitioners have failed to prove any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgments/orders of the lower Courts and resultantly, I dismiss the instant revision petition along with C.M. No.67 of 2011 by maintaining the judgments/orders of the lower Courts in limine. H.B.T./159/P Petition allowed.