P L D 1967 Karachi 696 (PLP)

This appeal is by the Province of West Pakistan against the order of the Second Additional District Judge, Hyderabad, confirming the interim injunction granted earlier in favour of the respondent with regard to the recovery of certain amounts of money as land revenue.

2. The respondent brought a suit for recovery of Rs. 63,125 from the Province of West Pakistan and for permanent injunction to restrain the West Pakistan Government from recovering its dues as arrears of land revenue. The claim of the respondent was based on an agreement entered into by the respondent with the Divisional Forest Officer, Thatta, for the falling and removal of timber and firewood. The plaint in the suit was accompanied by an application under Order XXXIX; rules 1 and 2 C. P. C. on which the trial Court, by its order dated 27‑7‑1964, granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the West Pakistan Government from recovering its dues as arrears of land revenue.

3. The case again came up before the learned trial. Court on 25‑9‑1965 when the following order was passed :‑ "Heard Mr. Zaffar Hussain Mirza, Assistant Government Pleader for the defendant Government. Mr. Naimatullah Qureshi as well as Mr. Mangharam for the plaintiff are absent without any sufficient cause. Since it is admitted in the plaint that the plaintiff has not paid instalments of Rs. 35,000 injunction in respect of this amount cannot be maintained. But the injunction in respect of the remaining amount shall continue. The interim order shall accordingly stands amended." It is against this order that the present appeal has been preferred.

4. The only point urged before me by Mr. Naimuddin, the learned counsel for the appellants, is that the learned trial Court has stayed the recovery of Government land revenue without giving any reason therefor either in the order of ad interim injunction or in the order under appeal. Mr. Naimuddin referred to the provisions of Order XX, rules 4 and 5, C. P. C. which require courts to give in their judgments a concise statement of the case, the points for determination and the decision thereon and the reasons for such decisions. On the other hand, Mr. Chandnani respondent's counsel, contended that the plaint and the " affidavits of the parties were before the learned trial Judge and he should be deemed to have passed the impugned order on merits. I have no doubt that the learned trial Judge must have considered all the points relevant to the case and then made the order of 25‑9‑1965. But unfortunately, he has not given any reasons which compelled him to stay the recovery of Government dues. It may be‑noted that the respon dent's Advocates were called absent on the day when the impugned order was passed. I am not inclined to think that this order has been passed after hearing the parties. The order does not state whether in the opinion of the learned trial Judge the respondent had established a prima facie case in his favour and whether balance of convenience was on his side. The two conditions are necessary for issue of injunction under Order XXXIX.

5. For the above reasons, I am of the view that the trial Court's order dated 25‑9‑1965 restraining the recovery of Government dues as arrears of land revenue cannot be sustained. This order is, therefore, set aside and the case is remanded to the lower Court for disposal after hearing the parties, with the direction that the order that may be passed should contain the reasons for the decision of the lower Court. In the circumstances of the present case, I make no order as to costs. K. B. A. Order accordingly.