2020 PLP 1094 (CLC)

ATIR MAHMOOD, J.

Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.3 filed an application before respondent No.2 challenging the amendment in the Memorandum/ Articles of Association which was resisted by the petitioners by filing written replies thereto. However, respondent No.2 accepted the application vide order dated 02.06.2018. Petitioner No.3 challenged the said order in Writ Petition No.221892/2018 which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 27.07.2018. Order dated 27.07.2018 was then assailed by the petitioners in CPLA No.3824/2018 which was withdrawn vide order dated 08.05.2018 as under: "Mr. Arif Chaudhry, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner through instant Civil Miscellaneous Application on instructions states that a suit has already been filed to seek the relief, therefore, instant petition (CP 3824 of 2018) is not pressed stated that any observation made in the judgment may not impede rights and interests of the party. Order accordingly."

2. Prior to filing the above-mentioned writ petition, the petitioner filed a civil suit titled "Saleem Mahmood Akhtar and others v. Assistant District Officer and others" challenging the notices issued by respondent No.1. Upon the application of respondent No.3, the said suit was withdrawn after order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and a fresh suit (the present suit) was instituted. The petitioners also filed application for interim injunction which was dismissed by learned trial court vide order dated 10.06.2019. The petitioners filed FAO which was also dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Lahore vide order dated 06.02.2020. Hence this writ petition has been preferred.

3. Arguments heard. Record perused.

4. There are three basic ingredients, i.e. prima facie arguable case, irreparable loss and balance of inconvenience which are required to be established for grant of interim injunction and even if one of the said ingredients is missing, relief cannot be granted to the party seeking interim injunction.

5. The prayer clause of the application for grant of interim injunction is that "a restraining order may graciously be passed against the respondents by directing them not to interfere with the affairs of the Executive Board of Methodist Church in Pakistan in any manner whatsoever." However, in the plaint, the petitioners have prayed that "The amended Constitution and list of office bearers of the Executive Board of Methodist Church in Pakistan may kindly be restored." In the plaint, no prayer has been made to restrain the respondents from interfering in the affairs of the Execution Board, therefore, an interim relief which does not flow out of the main suit cannot be granted in the application for interim injunction.

6. There already exists an order of this Court against the petitioners, i.e. order dated 27.07.2018 passed in Writ Petition No.221892/2018. Though the order of the apex court dated 08.05.2018 says that any observation made in the judgment may not impede rights and interests of the party. But this effect is to be seen by the learned trial court while deciding the suit and not at this stage. Therefore, the principle of prima facie arguable case does not lie in favour of the petitioners.

7. The respondents are, as per version of the petitioners themselves, office bearers after setting aside the amendment in the constitution. Till the date the amendment is not restored or any other lawful process is adopted for throwing the respondents out of their offices, the respondents are likely to continue their status as office bearers. Therefore, the balance of inconvenience also lies in favour of the respondents.

8. Another contention of the petitioner's counsel is that the order (subject matter of the suit) passed by the respondent No.2 was without jurisdiction, but the said contention cannot be considered at this stage being sub judice before the trial court who has to decide the matter in accordance with law.

9. There are concurrent findings of law and fact against the petitioners which are immune from interference by this Court in its constitutional jurisdiction until and unless there is some gross illegality, misreading or non-reading of evidence therein which could not be pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioners. No interference is called for in the given circumstances.

10. For the aforementioned reasons, this writ petition is without any force, hence dismissed in limine. MWA/S-28/L Petition dismissed.