Fahim Ahmed Saeed Versus Mian Humayun Mahmud

Order

Jawad Hassan, J .--- The Appellants have filed this appeal under Order XLIII of C.P.C. against the impugned order dated 12.06.2025, passed by Civil Judge, Rawalpindi, whereby their application for grant of temporary injunction has been turned down.

2. At the outset, learned counsel submits that against the impugned order the Appellants have also filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi but subsequently, the same was withdrawn vide order dated 17.06.2025 due to lack of pecuniary jurisdiction. He further submits that the Appellants have a strong case for grant of interim injunction but the Civil Judge has turned down their request through the impugned order by not considering material aspects of the matter in true perspective. He prays for setting aside of the impugned order, being illegal and against the norms of justice.

3. Arguments heard and record perused.

4. Since short point is involved, notice to other side is dispensed with to avoid further delay and to promote the principle of speedy justice. Moreover, under the doctrine of limine control developed by this Court in Asif Saleem v. Chairman BOG University of Lahore and others (PLD 2019 Lahore 407) for early and expeditious disposal of a case, the Court can decide the matter at limine stage on the basis of material/documents available on the record/file and without issuing notice to other side so that the party concerned may not face inconvenience or monetary loss in approaching this Court.

5. Admittedly, the Appellants have filed a suit for declaration, recovery and permanent injunction along with an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C. for grant of temporary injunction but the Civil Court has "turned down" their request for grant of an ad-interim relief through the impugned order dated 12.06.2025. Without discussing the reasons/grounds taken by the Civil Court for "turning down" the Appellants' request for grant of temporary injunction, significant to mention here is that the terminology "turned down" is not used in deciding an application Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C. and the Civil Court should accept or dismiss it. If a quick glance is taken on the provisions contained in Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of C.P.C., it will elucidate that the Court may grant a temporary injunction to restrain a party from committing an act that could cause injury to the other party or damage to the subject matter of the suit on specific terms, such as duration, keeping an account or providing security. In the case of Shariq Builders and Property Advisors v. Dr. Muhammad Faisal Murad and others (2024 MLD 32), this Court has already discussed and elaborated these provisions of C.P.C.

6. In view of the above, since the impugned order suffers from a legal lacuna, it cannot be sustained and the same is hereby set-aside. The Appellants' application for grant of temporary injunction will be deemed to be pending before the Civil Court which will decide the same afresh strictly as per law.

Disposed of.

UN/F-12/L Order accordingly.