2002 PLP 17 (SCMR)

Date of hearing: 9th January, 2001. MUHAMMAD BASHIR JEHANGIRI, J.‑‑‑We have heard Syed Sharifuddin Pirzada, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court representing the petitioners and Mr. Naimur Rehman, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court appearing on behalf of the respondents at length and have perused the record.

2. Leave to appeal is granted to consider the following propositions of law raised in this petition:‑‑ (i) Whether the admission of an appeal on the ground that it raises important questions of law but denial of interim relief is a contradiction in terms giving rise to an error apparent on the face of the record. , (ii) Whether the order, dated 27‑10‑2000 of the Division Bench of the learned High Court while admitting the appeal and declining interim relief to the appellants is sustainable in law as learned Judges failed to appreciate that order, dated 30‑6‑1997, negates the concept of equality before law, that in absence of any distinguishing features there was no good reason to impose conditions on the appellants in Suit No.471 of 1996 while in a connected Suit No.470 of 1996, the builders of another property in the same locality were not made subject to any such conditions? (iii) Whether the learned Judges of the Division Bench could decline interim relief to the appellants without giving any reasons to substantiate that in identical circumstances in Suit No.470 of 1996, wherein respondents Nos. I to 3 were plaintiffs, the injunction application was dismissed without imposing any conditions at all and the order of the Division Bench insofar as it interfered with the order of the learned Single Judge was suspended by this Court? (iv) Whether the learned Single Judge concluded that the plaintiffs had no prima facie case, the balance of convenience was not in their favour and that the denial of an injunction would not cause them irreparable loss and injury and that the injunction application was, therefore, liable to be dismissed. Having so concluded whether the learned Single Judge could then have imposed conditions which amounted to granting the very same injunction which he had ruled that the plaintiffs were not entitled to? (v) Whether the learned Judges could in two cases based on identical grounds, instituted by the same plaintiffs, against two builders raising Construction in the same area, have passed two orders which were at variance with one another without assigning any reason and whether such orders discriminate against the appellants? (vi) Whether conditions imposed by order dated 30‑6‑1997 passed in C.P.L.A. No. 100‑K of 1997, which has suspended the‑stay granted by Division Bench of the High Court in H.C,.A. No.32 of 1997 against the order of the learned Single Judge in Suit No.470 of 1996 and whether the learned Single Judge and Division Bench could ignore the order of this Court which was binding on them? C. M.A. No.10 OF 2001 The titled C.M.A. is directed to be heard alongwith the appeal. Q.M.H./M.A.K/S‑133/S Leave granted.