AMIRALI EBRAHIMJI SHEIKHA AND Others vs SADRUDDIN AND ANOTHER

ORDER

1. ANWARUL HAQ, J.-This petition for special leave to appeal seeks to call in question an order made on the 20th of December 1972, by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan, whereby an ad interim injunction granted in favour of the plaintiffs-petitioners on the 21st of November 1972, was vacated.

2. The relevant facts are that the premises in suit are part of the ground floor in a building belonging to the petitioners and known as Sheikha House, situate on the junction of Bunder Road and Campbell Street, Karachi. They were in occupation of M/s. J. B. Advani & Co. Ltd., which company was declared to be an enemy --firm by a notification issued by the Government of Pakistan on the 5th of the January 1968, under the Defence of Pakistan Rules. By a further notification dated the 30th of April 1968, all the assets, movable and immovable, of this Company were vested in the Additional Custodian of Enemy Property for West Pakistan. These assets including the tenancy rights in shop in suit were purchased in open auction for a sum of Rs. 2,32,000 by respon--dent No. 1 acting for and on behalf of respondent No. 2, namely the Standard Bank Limited.

3. The petitioners, as owners of the premises, filed a Suit (No. 24 of 1972) on the 24th of January 1972, in the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan at Karachi for a permanent injunction res--training the enemy-firm and the West Pakistan Enemy Property Management Board from handing over possession of the disputed premises to any other party, and in that suit an ad interim in--junction was granted to them. It is complained that in disregard of that injunction the possession of the premises was transferred to the respondents. This new development compelled the peti--tioners file another suit, bearing No. 405/72, praying for pos--session of the premises, and for permanent injunction "restraining the respondents from carrying out any alteration, demolition, reconstruction, installation or changing the said premises into a banking hall for banking business or in any way dealing with the same." It was also prayed that the Nazir of the Court be appointed as Receiver of the property. An ad interim injunction was made in favour of the petitioners on 21-11-72, but the same was vacated by the Court on the 20th of December 1972.

4. When this petition came up for hearing before one of us on the 23rd of December 1972, for the grant of an ad interim relief during the pendency of the petition, it was directed that the Nazir of the Sind & Baluchistan High Court should visit the premises and submit a factual report as to the alterations and renovations said to have been carried out to the building and also to report whether banking business had actually been started by the respondents. This report has since been received, and shows that the renovations and alterations etc. Had been fully carried out and respondent No. 2 had started its banking business since the 21st of December 1972.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the two respondents are in unlawful possession of the property, has the West Pakistan Enemy Property Management Board had no legal authority to transfer the tenancy rights of the enemy-firm to the respondents, and alterations carried out by the respondents were likely to cause permanent and irreparable damage to the building. It is sub- -mitted that in these circumstances the balance of convenience clearly lies in favour of the petitioners, and the High Court was in error in vacating the ad interim injunction previously granted by it on the 21st of November 1972.

6. After bearing the learned counsel for the petitioners at some length, and perusing the factual report submitted by the Nazir of the Sind & Baluchistan High Court, we are of the view that no justification is made out for our interference in the matter. We have already stated that according to the factual report the renovations and alterations have already been carried out in the premises and banking business has been started since the 21st of December 1972. Such being the case, the, balance of convenience, or of inconvenience, clearly lies in favour of the respon--dents, as it will cause irreparable loss to them if the banking business is now directed to be closed. If the petitioners ultimately succeed in their suit, the respondents would no doubt be under an obligation to restore the premises to the petitioners in their original shape and form; in the alternative they could be ade--quately compensated.

7. The learned counsel submitted that the respondents were guilty of contempt of Court as they had violated the interim in--junction obtained by the petitioners in the earlier suit bearing No. 24/72. As the proceedings in that suit are not before us, it is not necessary to examine this matter. It is for the petitioners to move the High Court in this behalf, if so advised.

8. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is hereby dismissed.