ABDUL WAHID and 5 others vs NOOR MUHAMMAD and 7 others

ORDER

1. ' This first appeal was against an order of the trial Court dated 15-3-1993 passed in a civil suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell by which it prohibited pendente lite alienation of the land in dispute subject to deposit of balance price within two months of its order. Aggrieved of the condition imposed on the restraint, the plaintiffs have come up in appeal. It was urged that the trial Court was unauthorised to impose the condition for deposit of balance consideration as a condition precedent to issuance of a temporary injunction. Respondents agreed for sale of 628 Kanals, 12 Marlas of land at the price of Rs,1,40,000 per Killa in favour of the appellants. A sum of Rs,36 lacs was paid and several deeds of sales were executed. It is urged that the price already paid covered the sale price of about 224 Kanals. Since the respondents failed to abide by their agreement, a civil suit for specific performance was brought against them for completion of the sale of the remaining land upon payment of balance consideration. Alongwith the plaint, an application for temporary injunction was submitted to restrain the respondents from further alienating the land in dispute. By the impugned order, the trial Court disposed of the application for temporary injunction on the terms indicated above.

2. ' Solitary ground urged at the hearing by learned counsel was that Rules, 1, 2 of Order XXXIX, Civil P.C. Gave no authority to the Court to impose terms on the injunctive order. I am unable to agree with the wide proposition advanced in support of the appeal. In Fateh Muhammad v. Muhammad Hanif and another PLD 1990 Lahore 82, Wiqar Avais v. Raja Muhammad Shafi Janjua etc. 1992 CLC 8, I had an occasion to examine a similar contention and my view was that the Court could competently impose terms in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction. In Balquees Zaman Khan and others v. Tahir Mahmood Butt 1991 CLC 1507 (Lahore), Muhammad Ishtiaq Hussain and another v.

3. Zulfiqar Ali 1992 M LD 1699, my learned brethren Khalid Paul Khawaja, J. And Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J. Thought similarly. A Division Bench of Karachi High Court in Shama Enterprises (Private)

4. Ltd. v. Malik Ghulam Sarwar and others 1989 M LD 21, also subscribed to this view. There are other judgments in this Court which expressed similar view.

5. Therefore, the imposition of terms as to deposit of balance price for issuance of a temporary injunction for binding the owner from dealing with his property agreed to be sold by him was neither illegal nor unjust nor unfair. Learned counsel time and again referred to the bare text of Order XXXIX and tried to spell out of it an absence of power in the Court for making of such an order. Injunctive relief was of discretionary nature and the Court passing an order for a temporary injunction could regulate its exercise of discretion by imposing terms for protecting legitimate rights of the parties. Upon above view of the matter, learned counsel failed to point out any rectifiable error in the impugned order. Therefore, the appeal had little merit in it and is consequently dismissed in limine.