Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O.XXXIX,Rr.1,2

Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 42,54,21,56(f)

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 42, 54, 21 & 56 (f)---Suit for declaration and permanent injunction---Letter of intent---Temporary injunction, grant of---Scope---Plaintiff was required to establish some right in its favour for grant of an injunctive relief on the basis of an instrument, deed or even a letter of intent---Letter of intent had expired hence no further relief by way of an extension in contract period could be granted---Plaintiff could not come to the court to seek an injunctive relief after expiry of period mentioned in the instrument---Contract stood revoked after expiry of period and no vested right would accrue to the plaintiff---No relief could be sought in terms of Ss.21 & 56 (f) of Specific Relief Act, 1877 as contract could not be specifically enforced any more---Injunction in such matters could only be granted where the terms of contract were free from doubt or were not in dispute---Such relief being discretionary in nature had to be exercised in a judicial manner---If contract or licence was revoked without reasonable notice and during the subsistence of an agreement or licence, the aggrieved party could claim damages but not injunctive relief---Plaintiff could not sought specific performance or enforcement of agreement/contract beyond the period stipulated in the letter of intent/contract---If enforcement of said agreement could not be sought, no injunctive relief could be asked for---Plaintiff could claim damages owing to the alleged cancellation /modification of letter of intent---Plaintiff could not be allowed to continue and keep working on the basis of interim orders even beyond the period stipulated in the letter of intent/contract---Plaintiff could not establish a vested right on the basis of interim orders passed by the court---Application for grant of temporary injunction was dismissed, in circumstances. Messrs Muhammad Ishaq and Sons v. Government of Pakistan and another 1992 CLC 1515 and Petrosin Corporation (Pvt.) Limited Singapore and 2 others v. Oil and Gas Development Company Ltd. 2010 SCMR 306 ref. Arts Council of Pakistan v. Riazuddin Pirzada…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492