Sh. SALAHUDDIN vs THE PROVINCE OF PUNJAB AND 3 Other
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute over the allotment of a residential quarter. The petitioner challenged the dismissal of his civil revision by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the refusal of a temporary injunction by the lower courts. The core legal question was whether the petitioner had established a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss sufficient to warrant the grant of a temporary injunction in a suit challenging the allotment of the property to a third party. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a valid legal character or a prima facie case, noting that his own allotment was conditional and subject to cancellation without compensation. Furthermore, evidence indicated that the property was not to be allotted to anyone pending the outcome of the respondent's appeal. The Court affirmed that the grant of a temporary injunction is a matter of judicial discretion, which was properly exercised by the lower courts in accordance with established legal principles.
- Does the grant of a temporary injunction require the petitioner to establish a prima facie case and the balance of convenience?
- Can a petitioner claim a right to a temporary injunction when their own interest in the property is conditional and subject to cancellation?
- Is the refusal of a temporary injunction by lower courts subject to interference under revisional jurisdiction if the discretion was exercised according to judicial principles?
- Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-This is a petition for leave to appeal against the order dated 19-2-76 of the Lahore High Court dismissing Civil Revision No. 156 of 1976 calling in question refusal of temporary injunction to the petitioner by the Courts below.
2. The dispute pertains to a quarter which was allotted to respondent No. 4 on 1-9-1956 and subsequently cancelled from his name. During the pendency of his appeal, which was later accepted, this very quarter was conditionally allotted to the petitioner. Against the acceptance of appeal the petitioner filed a revision before the Government which was accepted and respondent No. 4 thereupon instituted Writ Petition (No. 1015 of 1963) and succeeded in getting the case remanded. The revision petition of the petitioner was dismissed on 13-2-1975 by respondent No. 2 after which he instituted the civil suit, out of which the present proceedings have arisen for a declara--petition that the cancellation of the allotment from his name was illegal, void and inoperative, the main ground of attack being on the ineligibility of respondent No. 4 to the allotment of the quarter in his favour. A temporary injunction was also sought from the civil Court which was refused and an appeal there from also failed on the ground that the petitioner neither had a prima facie case nor any irreparable lose would accrue to him if the stay order was not granted. In the High Court the petitioner mainly relied upon the non-entitlement of respondent No. 4 to the allotment but, in view of the learned Judge, he failed to establish a prima facie case in his own favour, It was held that the allotment of the petitioner was conditional, liable to cancellation without any claim or compensation, and the contention of the petitioner that he bad made improvements in respect of the quarter while it remained allotted to him was untenable.
3. Before us the petitioner has reiterated the grounds taken by him before the High Court. His main argument once again is that respondent No. 4 was not eligible for allotment of the quarter which he had procured fraudulently and besides did not fulfil certain conditions including the one for payment for entire instalments enabling him to occupy the quarter. He also submitted that he had made improvements over the quarter from his own expense, was in occupation for over a decade and had also cleared all the instalments. These, it is submitted, establish a prima facie case and throw the balance of convenience in his favour.
4. The issuance of temporary injunction is in the discretion of the Court and the petitioner was unable to show before the High Court in its jurisdiction under section 115, C. P. C. That the same was not exercised according to judicial principles or in ignorance of the recognized principles for the grant of temporary injunction. In order to succeed, the petitioner had to establish a legal character but admittedly his allotment of the quarter was not absolute. It was subject to the condition that the allotment would be cancelled without claim or compensation if the allotment in favour of respondent No. 4, whose appeal was pending, was restored; indeed the appeal was accepted on 25-9-1962. In the order of respondents No. 2 dated 13-2-75 which is before us at pages 24-29 of the supplementary paper book the circumstances in which the allotment of the petitioner came about have been noticed in detail. It significantly reveals that in the appeal proceedings, the Additional Commissioner had on 9-6-62, inter alia, passed an order to the effect that until the decision in appeal preferred by respondent No. 4, the quarter in question was not to be allotted to any one else. In view of this order on record, it seems doubtful if an allotment could be made in favour of the petitioner. We do not express any formal opinion on this point as the civil Court is seized of the matter. But this revelation certainly negatives any claim of the petitioner to the grant of a temporary, injunction and the same was rightly refused by the Courts below.
5. This petition accordingly fails and is dismissed.