Interim Relief

Possession of plot-in-dispute was handed over to the complainants through bailiff in compliance of the order of the Trial Court under provisions of S.7 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005; later, during the trial yet with the delay of almost three months, a petition was moved by brother of the accused (petitioner) praying that the possession be restored to him

Claim /stance of the petitioner was that he was in fact in possession of plot-in-dispute and bailiff had wrongly handed over the possession to complainants

Petitioner filed revision as his said application was dismissed by the Trial Court

Validity

Report of bailiff revealed that nowhere he (bailiff) mentioned that plot-in-dispute was owned and possessed by the petitioner, rather the proceedings were smoothly conducted and possession was handed over to the complainant without any resistance or counter claim agitated at the spot

Thus, the bailiff, on the day petitioner moved the Trial Court, had already handed over the vacant possession to the complainant of the plot at the spot

Petitioner, in spite of being queried, failed before the Court to justify his stance through relevant provision of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, or by mentioning any provision of law under which the petitioner was empowered to file petition for the decision of his application which was not even decided during the pendency of complaint

Once complaint was decided (which though resulted into acquittal) the Trial Court became functus officio and was not empowered to decide the grievance of the petitioner

Pertinently, the petitioner also approached High Court with a considerable delay after his application had been decided about eight years ago

Court becomes functus officio after it passes and signs any order

Under S.369 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, no Court when it has signed its judgment, will alter or review the same, except to correct a clerical error

No court including High Court can review its order passed in criminal jurisdiction as the Court would become functus officio after it has passed and signed the order

Criminal revision, being devoid of any force, was dismissed, in circumstances.

When vires of law is challenged interim relief cannot be granted.

Relief of mandatory injunction is a discretionary relief and can be granted in the circumstances specified under Specific Relief Act, 1877

Standards of passing mandatory interlocutory orders, and that too ex-parte, have now been settled conclusively

If a Court is called upon to grant any relief on any interlocutory application, which when granted would mean granting substantially the relief claimed in the suit and/or to restore status as existed on the day suit was filed, the Court ought to be very careful and circumspect in the matter of granting any such prayer

No absolute bar in granting such relief and Court should not lay down absolute proposition when such are not necessary and consequently forge fetters for itself but such exercise of discretion should be limited to rare and exceptional cases

Such orders of injunctions or for that matter any interlocutory order of mandatory nature are passed where rights sought to be protected are clear and/or based on comprehensive undisputed report and not where it is doubtful, cloudy or needed trial

Injunction cannot be granted to establish a new state of things differing from state of things which existed on the date when proceedings were instituted and picture for undisputed possession of plaintiffs of suit was not at all clear when suit was filed

Interlocutory mandatory injunction can only under those compelling circumstances be granted in case Court is satisfied that matter is urgent one and an immediate assistance is needed to prevent irreparable injury being done to legal or equitable rights of a claimant

Where passing of mandatory injunction is inevitable leading principle, which may be conducive for the situation, is to limit exercise of discretion to the extent it is needed

Leading rationale which ought, in normal circumstances, to be guide of Court and to regulate its discretion in granting injunction is that only such restraint should be imposed or such powers be exercised as may suffice to stop the mischief complained of

If restraining order of ex-parte nature is sufficient to handle given situation then it is not conceivable that maximum cap of discretion be utilized, though it is within Court's discretion.

Petitioner filed constitutional petition challenging the action of the respondents in taking over the land situated at old Walton Airport (Lahore) owned by Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) in an illegal manner

Validity

In the absence of any glaring illegality or violation of fundamental rights, it was imperative that the Courts should exercise judicial restraint from passing any adverse order, which could potentially hinder or nullify any government initiative to encourage and promote the investment process because judicial restraint encouraged the judges to exercise their powers with restraint and wisdom and limit the exercise of their own powers while intervening in the matters relating to policy of the government having financial perspective and outcome and exercise

High Court observed that without there being any obvious illegality and deviation from law, any interference by the Court within the purview of Art.199 of the Constitution would badly hamper the initiatives to enhance business activities and would put the whole scheme of actions for promotion of business and trade for the public, a fundamental right provided under Art.18 of the Constitution, to a standstill

Under Art.199 of the Constitution, High Court was though competent to exercise power of judicial review to examine administrative actions from the touchstone of violation of law and breach of Constitution yet the power of judicial review was regulated by the principles of Judicial Restraint

Interim relief, in writ petition, could only be granted as per mandate of Art.199(4) of the Constitution where it was clearly stated that under writ jurisdiction, before making an interim order, the Court had to look into the public interest which should not be harmed/hampered in any manner, therefore, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner had failed to make out a prima facie case in his favour and balance of convenience was not tilted in favour for grant of interim relief

Application for grant of interim relief was dismissed, in circumstances.

Accused was aggrieved of order passed by Trial Court under S. 7 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, allowing interim relief to complaint

Validity

Trial could not start until a period of seven days after supplying relevant copies to accused in terms of S. 265-C, Cr.P.C. was expired and charge was framed

Such was considered as first step towards commencement of trial and second step was recording of evidence

Condition of "during trial" as provided in S. 7 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, was to come in force

Trial Court did not attend itself to condition precedent appearing in S. 7 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 before passing order in question, which order was without lawful authority and not sustainable in the eyes of law

High Court set aside order in question and remanded the matter to Trial Court for decision afresh after framing of charge and affording right of hearing to parties

Revision was allowed accordingly.

Petitioner-company was aggrieved of arbitration award which was not filed before Court to become rule of Court and had sought setting aside of the same

Validity

When award was not before Court for setting aside the same, its binding effect could not be fizzled on the basis of presumptions and suppositions

Petitioner-company, if felt genuine threat to its rights from the award, it could have placed the same before the Court in terms of R.10, chap. 4-B, Part-B, Volume I of High Court (Lahore) Rules and Orders and had claimed interim relief in those proceedings

Relief of temporary injunction was an equitable relief which was solely based on well settled principles of equity

Petitioner-company not only concealed certain material facts, while approaching the High Court but its conduct also disentitled petitioner-company to claim discretionary and equitable relief

Deduction made by respondent-company under award was adjustable on final determination and at the most could be termed as monetary loss which was never treated as irreparable loss in the eyes of law for the purposes of relief of injunction

High Court declined to interfere in the matter as petitioner-company failed to point out any illegality or material irregularity in the order

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Even if High Court has to grant interim relief to any civil servant as a stopgap measure until he is in a position to agitate his grievance before Service Tribunal, such relief amounts to assuming jurisdiction over lis and in doing so High Court would be going against mandate of Art. 212(2) of the Constitution.

Applicants/alleged unauthorized occupants had raised legal objection to the maintainability of the complaint on the ground that criminal complaint could not be filed through Attorney

Applicants also moved an application that proceedings could be stayed till the said legal objection regarding locus standi of the Attorney to file complaint was finally decided

Validity

Complaint need not necessarily be made by the person injured, but could be made by the person aware of the offence

Complaint could be filed by the attorney acting on behalf of original owner of disputed property

Objection raised by applicants to the maintainability of the complaint by the attorney, carried no weight.

Applicants had alleged that illegal occupants, during pendency of complaint allegedly had sold the shop in question to another person

Complainant had contended that application was not maintainable, as they being not in possession of shop in question, had lost their locus standi

Validity

Complainant had prayed for dismissal of the application

Contention of complainant was without any substance

If such proposition was accepted it would open a room for unauthorized occupant to defeat, least frustrate an order for restoration, which normally would be in respect of person complained as illegal occupant

Neither mere change of hands nor manoeuvre by unauthorized occupant would be a sufficient ground to defeat a lawful order for possession or title even, which was obtained by an aggrieved person from a competent court of law

Mere delivery of possession by unauthorized occupants to any body under any plea would not be an excuse to legal consequences of an order passed under Ss.7 & 8 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005.

Once the ingredients of S.3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, appeared to have constituted the remedy, including that of interim relief, same could not be denied, merely with reference to a sale agreement; else the object and purpose of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, would stand frustrated which otherwise was insisted to be protected, regardless of pendency of any civil litigation or claimed title therein

Purchaser would continue enjoying all his rights arising out of sale agreement, and could well be put into vacant possession of subject matter, on success of his only available right i.e. to file a suit for specific performance of contract, which, could include compensation.

Statutory forum empowered to grant final relief was also empowered to grant interim relief and if a statute did not contain provision for interim relief, the same did not mean that an Authority, while exercising appellate jurisdiction, was powerless to grant such relief

Power to grant interim relief was a necessary concomitant out of the power to grant final relief.

Bar on issuance of prohibitory order, under S. 54-C of Electricity Act, 1910, from disconnecting supply to premises without first asking petitioner to deposit due amount within a period of thirty days, could not be read in isolation

Amount assessed against petitioner was made disputed by the supply company itself, so unless it was determined finally, the provisions of S. 54-C of Electricity Act, 1910, could not be applied

High Court directed petitioner to deposit current bills of consumed units regularly

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

During pendency of grievance petitions filed by workers, employer company dismissed some of the workers on the ground that principal of the company terminated agreement in respect of equipment maintenance and repair work done by the company therefore, workers employed for such purpose had become surplus

NIRC suspended operation of termination letters issued to such workers

Validity

Held, in Regln.32 of National Industrial Relations Commission (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973, there was a clear distinction between cases where unfair labour practice was apprehended to be committed and where unfair labour practice had already been committed

Power of NIRC where unfair labour practice had already been committed was governed by Regln.32(1) of National Industrial Relations Commission (Procedure and Functions) Regulation, 1973, and in the cases where unfair labour practice was apprehended to be committed power of NIRC was regulated by Regln.32(2) of National Industrial Relations Commission (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973

While passing order in question, NIRC failed to advert grounds taken in termination letter and other issues relating to jurisdiction to pass ante status quo which had also not dealt with in a proper manner

High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction set aside order passed by NIRC suspending operation of termination letters and remanded the matter to NIRC for decision afresh after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

If a Court has conferred with jurisdiction to grant a final relief, it may also exercise its judicial discretion to grant interim relief possessing inherent jurisdiction in such regard.

Petitioner sought restraining of authorities from issuing printing order to respondent in respect of a book for academic year 2012-2013

Validity

In absence of any lawful ground, authorities could not be restrained from issuing printing order in favour of respondent

Issuance of any stay order regarding printing of the book by respondent would amount to granting main relief to the petitioner

As the academic year, 2012-2013 would start from 1st of March, 2012, restraining the respondent from printing approved book in question would be against public interest

High Court declined to grant any restraining order in favour of petitioner against printing of book in question

Application was dismissed in circumstances.

Grievance of petitioner was that authorities had placed his name on Exit Control List and denied him permission to travel abroad for treatment of his ailing son

Validity

Right to travel abroad of a citizen of Pakistan was a fundamental right

Petitioner had been denied such right ostensibly on the ground of his being a loan defaulter

High Court allowed one time permission to petitioner to travel abroad subject to furnishing of third party surety, as his son was seriously ill

Application was allowed accordingly.

Plaintiff was running flour mills and he filed application for direction to authorities to resume operation of his mills and restoration of wheat quota allocated for the month of Ramadan

Validity

Plaintiff had not only applied for renewal of his license within time but had also requested authorities to issue him a challan for payment of renewal fee

Authorities did not issue challan to plaintiff nor they had accepted or rejected his application but kept the same pending without assigning any reason or ground

Defendants were licensing authority and it was their statutory duty and obligation under West Pakistan Food Grains (Licensing Control) Order, 1957, to promptly issue challan to plaintiff or at least to inform him about reasons for not doing so, or to issue him mandatory notice under clause 10(i) of West Pakistan Food Grains (Licensing Control) Order, 1957, if he had contravened any of the terms and conditions of license so that he could have defended himself

Authorities did not discharge their statutory duties and functions under the provisions of West Pakistan Food Grains (Licensing Control) Order, 1957, and had become judges of their own cause by declaring plaintiff as defaulter without giving him any opportunity of hearing and also without waiting for trial and outcome of suit

High Court directed the authorities that after renewal of plaintiff's license, future wheat quota/stocks would be allocated/ allowed/supplied to him by authorities without any discrimination and in accordance with law

High Court further directed the authorities that in case of any legal bar or impediment in issuing challan and renewing license, proper reasons and grounds should be communicated in writing by authorities by a notice to plaintiff, providing him full opportunity of hearing in accordance with law

Application was allowed accordingly.

Provisions of S.7 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, have been enacted only to hand over possession to owner or occupier

Such powers can only be exercised during trial when court is satisfied that accused person prima facie found to be under unlawful possession of property in question.

For the last more than six years despite receipt of huge amount from plaintiff, defendants did not take any step for reconstruction of building in question

Plaintiff offered to reconstruct subject property of the suit on demised premises after obtaining approval from Karachi Building Control Authority at his cost

Plaintiff further undertook that he would simultaneously keep paying agreed rent to defendants

Effect

High Court restrained defendants from creating any third party interest over leased portion of suit plot

Offer and undertaking of plaintiff was justified and reasonable, therefore, High Court allowed the plaintiff to reconstruct the property on plot in question

Application was allowed accordingly.

Petitioner was provincial government and had grievance against National Electric Power Regulatory Authority with regard to change in electricity tariff

Petitioner/Government sought interim protection against recovery of tariff by the Authority, till institution of appropriate proceedings against final order

Respondent-Authority took an exception to such interim protection as the petitioner/government was avoiding recovery of tariff

Further contention was that order finally deciding tariff by the Authority was in the knowledge of the government and was also placed on record along with parawise comments and government did not assail the same, therefore, government was not entitled to any interim relief from High Court in the matter

Validity

High Court declined to grant interim relief as it was open to the government to seek such relief from competent forum, where final order would be assailed

Petition was disposed of accordingly.

When no prima facie case was made out; interim relief was not open to be granted, and similarly where the main relief should (indirectly) stand granted, by merely granting a temporary relief, the latter might be refused in the best interest of the parties to the suit.

Appeal had been directed against order of Member, NIRC whereby he dismissed the stay application of appellant-union against Management

Management had denied relationship of employer and employee between disputed workers

Appellant union had failed to produce any appointment letter or any other document to prove that said disputed workers had been appointed by the management and that they were paid by it

Question whether relationship of employer and employees existed between those disputed workers and the management, would be decided after the parties would lead evidence

Appellant union had neither a prima facie case nor balance of convenience lay on its side nor would it suffer irreparable loss if the stay was refused; on the other hand, if stay was granted to appellant union, it would amount to induct those disputed workers in the employment of management which would suffer an irreparable loss if said workers were thrust upon it and Management would be greatly inconvenienced in that way

No Industrial dispute being pending, the interim relief could not be granted to appellant union

Application for interim relief was rightly rejected by Member, NIRC for cogent reasons

No exception could be taken to impugned order, which was well-reasoned

Said order was upheld and appeal was dismissed having no merits at all.

Petitioner, along with plaint, filed application for grant of temporary injunction, wherein it was prayed that WAPDA be restrained from recovering the disputed amount of the detection bill, which application having concurrently been dismissed by the Trial Court and Appellate Court petitioner had filed revision petition

Validity

Matter in dispute being pecuniary in nature, no irreparable loss and injury could be caused to the petitioner

Petitioner being not entitled to any interim relief without deposit of disputed amount, his application for grant of temporary injunction, was rightly dismissed by the courts below.

If main case was withdrawn, there was no justification for interim order/relief to continue which was granted only on the basis of pendency of main case/complaint

Trial Court had prejudiced the case of respondents by depriving them of proving their right, hence they suffered for an act of court

In presence of order passed by High Court, Trial Court could not have passed any order

Division Bench of High Court declined to interfere with judgment passed by Single Judge

Intra-court appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Defendants, who were also landowners and were getting their irrigation water from other outlets also filed application for transferring their land to the same outlet from which plaintiffs were irrigating their land

Said application was allowed by the Divisional Canal Officer vide impugned order which was confirmed by Superintending Canal Officer

Plaintiffs filed a suit challenging said order and along with their suit, filed application under O.XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2, C.P.C., praying for interim relief against the implementation of said orders

Contention of plaintiffs was that they had not received any notice as required under S.20 of Canal and Drainage Act, 1873, either before passing of impugned order or at the time of confirmation thereof

Plaintiffs, admittedly were not served any notice before the passing of impugned order and when confirmatory order was passed

Application filed by plaintiffs under O.XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2, C.P.C. was allowed and orders passed by courts below, were set aside.

Balance of convenience was also not in favour of the applicant as great inconvenience would. be caused to the respondents in exercising their legal rights to deal as per law

No irreparable loss would be caused to the applicant, if the injunction was refused, because the loss, if any, could be compensated in the shape of damages

Relief of injunction was discretionary and court was not bound to grant it in every case and it was not to be granted, unless the court was satisfied as to its real need

Discretion was to be exercised in accordance with reason and sound judicial principles

Court, while dealing with application for grant of injunction, had to look and assess all the circumstances obtaining in suit and more so while granting equitable relief

Discretion vested in a court of law had to be exercised judiciously and equitably ensuring all the time that the twain of law and justice were adequately applied and administered.

Interim order passed on application of plaintiff was confirmed, in circumstances.

Petitioner, who was employed in respondents' establishment as Cargo Assistant, had alleged that he fell sick and applied for leave, but instead of granting leave, employers issued show-cause notice and initiated inquiry proceedings against him

Petitioner had further alleged that he was pressurized to resign, otherwise he was threatened to be dismissed under the gari of disciplinary proceedings and that during inquiry proceedings he was transferred from Karachi to Lahore, which act of employers was alleged to be an act of victimization and unfair labour practice

Petitioner in his petition had not mentioned that he was either office-bearer or member of trade union, but had only submitted that he was affiliated and was active supporter of union

No specific instance of alleged victimization prior to transfer order had been mentioned by petitioner in his petition, so as to constitute any act of unfair labour practice on part of employers

Petitioner had himself stated that Trade Union to which he claimed to be affiliated and active supporter, was not even -registered

Held, it could 'not be conceived as to what activities, petitioner had been doing regarding Trade Union, which allegedly caused annoyance to employers so as to victimize him

Issuing of interim relief, was subject to pendency of Industrial dispute under proviso of clause (e) of subsection (4) of S.49 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, while no such industrial dispute was pending

Petitioner had not been able to make out a prima facie case for grant of prohibitory order; and due to non-applicability of provisions of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, to employers/establishment, petition filed by petitioner, was not maintainable

Petition along with application under Regln.No.32(2)(c) of National Industrial Relations Commission (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973, was dismissed and interim prohibitory order passed in favour of petitioner, was recalled.

Commissioner has power to grant interim relief, wherever an appellant requests for such relief and makes out a prima facie case for grant of such relief

Such power has to be exercised judiciously in accordance with the principles laid down by superior Courts

While exercising appellate jurisdiction, Commissioner has ancillary or incidental power to grant interim relief i.e. to grant stay against the demand made by Income Tax Officer

Remedy of appeal before Commissioner cannot be said to be inadequate and ineffective in absence of express power in the statute to grant interim relief.

Petitioner had filed application for grant of interim relief praying that Public Service Commission might be directed not to hold test and interview for the post of Judge Family Court till disposal of his petition for leave to appeal before Supreme Court

Petitioner, who was working as Judge Family Court on ad hoc basis, did not apply to Public Service Commission within time for unexplained reasons

Consideration of irreparable loss and balance of convenience also did not favour grant of interim relief to petitioner

Application for issuance of interim relief/stay order, having no merit was dismissed.

Parties entered into agreement first in 1968 and then in 1976 and had been operating under agreement of 1976 for last six years or so

Hotel, held, to be in possession of petitioner by Courts below

Supreme Court allowed petitioner to manage affairs of hotel ad interim in accordance with terms of agreement and subject to conditions laid by Supreme Court.

Art. 21.2-Appeal-Withdrawal-Interim relief-Appeal allowed to be withdrawn for being presented before appropriate forum (Service Tribunal)-Pending decision by Service Tribunal, interim relief (maintenance of present status and emoluments) granted but appropriate time limit fixed for presentation of appeal.-[Appeal (civil)].