Messrs SHANGRILA HOTELS/RESORTS (PVT.) LTD. through Managing Director
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal against the refusal of interim relief. The petitioner, a lessee of the Pines Hotel, alleged illegal dispossession by the respondents, whereas the respondents contended that possession was retaken due to the petitioner's default in lease payments. The petitioner instituted a suit for possession, permanent injunction, damages, and recovery of money, alongside an application for an interim injunction seeking the restoration of possession. Both the trial court and the High Court dismissed the interim relief applications, holding that the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case or irreparable loss. Upon hearing the petitioner's Managing Director and noting the statements made by the respondents' counsel and the Advocate-General, N.-W.F.P., the Supreme Court disposed of the petition on the agreed terms that the respondents would not lease the disputed property to any third party and would run the hotel themselves during the pendency of the suit.
- Whether an interim injunction for restoration of possession can be granted without establishing a prima facie case and irreparable loss?
- Can a petition for leave to appeal be disposed of on the basis of a statement made by the parties regarding the preservation of the disputed property pending suit?
ORDER
' SALEM AKHTAR, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the learned Judges of the High Court whereby its appeal against the order refusing to grant interim relief was dismissed.
2. The respondents had leased out Pines Hotel to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the respondents illegally dispossessed the petitioner and took possession of the building. The stand taken by the respondents was that the petitioner had failed to pay huge amount of lease as provided by the lease deed and therefore in terms of the lease they took over possession from the petitioner. The petitioner filed suit against the respondents for possession, permanent injunction, damages and in the alternative for recovery of Rs,38,41,480 and another sum of .Rs,2 crores with interest. The petitioner had also filed an application for interim injunction and had sought possession of the hotel. This application was dismissed by the learned trial Court and the appeal filed against it was also dismissed with the direction that the trial Court shall decide the suit in short possible time, but not later than six months. Both the Courts have held that the petitioner had failed to make out a prima facie case and no irreparable loss will be caused to the petitioner.
3. As the learned counsel for the petitioner did not appear, Mr. Arif, the Managing Director of the petitioner hotel, stated that he would be satisfied if the respondents do not lease out the hotel to any other party and the suit is disposed of at an early date. The High Court has already given a direction for disposal of the suit. At this stage Mr. Sardar Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Mr. Saifur Rehman Kiyani, learned Advocate-General, N.-W.F.P. Made statement that during the pendency of the suit, the respondents would not lease out the disputed property to any 'other person. However, they would run the hotel themselves. This statement was acceptable to Mr. Arif and the petition is disposed of in terms of this statement.
Cited by 1 case
- M/s. AIR CIRO through its Senior Partner vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN 2018 PLJ Islamabad 94