MUHAMMAD NAWAZ Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN
This judgment shall dispose of Civil Revisions Nos. 911, 912, 913, 914 an,' 915 all of 1988 as common questions (II law and facts are involved therein. It shall, however, remain on the file of Civil Revision No.911 of 1988.
2. In this revision petition the petitioner has assailed the order dated 28‑1‑1988 passed lay the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, dismissing his appeal from order dated 22‑12‑1986 passed by the learned trial Court dismissing his application for temporary injunction during the pendency of the suit filed by the petitioner challenging tale legality of notice dated 8‑2‑1986 through which the respondents required the petitioner to pay house rent allowance for the period from 1‑7‑1984 to 28 2‑1995. This action was challenged by the petitioner by piling suit from which this revision petition has arisen. The case of the petitioner was that a hut was constructed by the petitioner and the respondent levied the house rent just after its construction and the demand of recovery of house rent allowance paid to the petitioner by the respondents as its employee from 1‑7‑1981 to 28‑2‑1985 through the impugned notice was illegal. The petitioner during the pendency of the suit prayed for an injunction against the respondents restraining them from recovering the suit amount till the pendency of the suit. The learned trial Court dismissed the application by order dated 22‑12‑1986 and the learned lower appellate Court on appeal filed by the petitioner upheld the said order dismissing the appeal by order dated 2,8‑1‑1958.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the notice impugned in the suit was issued on 8‑2‑1986 and the demand was raised from 1‑7‑‑1991. The case of the petitioner was that he was not in possession of any house from the Raid date whereas the petitioner has been levied house rent for the hut constructed by him on the land of the respondents from 28‑2‑1985 which is being deducted from his pay. Learned counsel argued that if the authorities of the respondents came to know that the petitioner was to be levied rent from 28‑2‑1985 in respect of the said house constructed by him on the land of the respondents, which decision was consciously taken, it was implied therein that no amount was recoverable on account of house rent from the petitioner for the period prior thereto. The delay in raising the demand from 1‑7‑1981 after a period of five years was also a factor which should have been taken into consideration in deciding whether the petitioner had prima facie case which has not been considered by both the Courts below. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was not in possession of any Government accommodation or the house in dispute prior to 1985.
4. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents argued that since the dispute relates to money, therefore, no irreparable loss can be said to be caused to the petitioner‑plaintiff if no injunction was passed.
5. I have considered the arguments of both the sides. The arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner have considerable force. There are three necessary conditions which a plaintiff has to fulfil for issuance of temporary injunction whether he has a prima facie case, balance of convenience is also in his favour and that he shall suffer irreparable loss if no injunction is issued. A demand has been raised on 8‑2‑1986 after a period of five years by the respondents. It is an admitted fact that from 28‑2‑1985 rent has been levied and deducted from the pay of the petitioner and if the respondents levied the house rent from the said date, the petitioner has an arguable case to say as to how the same could be demanded for the period prior thereto. No doubt money is involved but because the petitioner is a poor man drawing very low .salary, therefore, if the recoveries are allowed to be made from him of the impugned amount it will certainly cause irreparable loss to the petitioner as he would be deprived of even his monthly salary to provide maintenance to his family. On the other hand the petitioner being the employee of the respondents, if the temporary injunction is issued, the respondents will not suffer any loss inasmuch as certain amounts such as G.P.Fund etc. which are available with the respondents would certainly be sufficient to safeguard the interest of the respondents. The balance of convenience is also in favour of the petitioner. The Courts below while passing the impugned orders have not followed the well‑established principles of law laid down by superior Courts regarding issuance of temporary injunction during the pendency of the suit as such they have acted with material irregularity and illegality to exercise of their discretionary jurisdiction. The impugned orders are also arbitrary.
6. This revision petition is accepted, the impugned orders of both the Courts below are set aside and the application of the petitioner moved by him with the suit for temporary injunction is hereby accepted and the respondents are restrained from recovering the disputed amount from the petitioner till the disposal of the suit fled by him. In the interest of justice, however, it is ordered that this injunction shall be subject to the condition of furnishing security by the petitioner before the learned trial Court within one month from today for payment of the disputed amount in case his suit fails. The learned trial Court is also directed to dispose of the suit before 31‑12‑1988 positively. There will be no order as to costs.
H.B.T./M‑826/L ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Revision petition accepted.