| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2020 SLG 764 2020 SLD 764 2020 CLC 675 |
Islamabad High Court
F.A.O. No. 172 of 2019, decision Dated: 21-11-2019, hearing Date : 16-10-2019
MIANGUL HASSAN AURANGZEB, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Imran Feroze Malik for Appellant.
Respondent(s) by: Barrister Raja Jibran Tariq Ali
F.A.O. No. 172 of 2019, decision Dated: 21-11-2019, hearing Date : 16-10-2019
MIANGUL HASSAN AURANGZEB, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Imran Feroze Malik for Appellant.
Respondent(s) by: Barrister Raja Jibran Tariq Ali
NAUMAN AZHAR
VS
CELVAS PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH AUTHORIZED OFFICER AND OTHERS
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: O,XXXIX,1,2,O,XLIII,1(r)
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2 & O. XLIII, R. 1(r)--- Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 156--- Appeal against interim injunction--- Limitation--- Limitation period for filing an appeal against order passed under O.XXXIX, Rr. 1 and 2, C.P.C. is ninety days. 2015 YLR 209 and 2010 MLD 1578 ref. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---- ----O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2 & O. XLIII, R. 1--- Suit for declaration, injunction and damages---Interim injunction---Quantifiable loss---Defendant was aggrieved of interim injunction granted in favor of plaintiff---Plea raised by defendant was that loss caused to plaintiff could be remedied in terms of money therefore, interim injunction could not have been granted---Validity---If loss of plaintiff was measurable in terms of money, injunction could not be granted---Mandate of S.56(i) of Specific Relief Act, 1877 was that no injunction should be granted when equally efficacious relief could be obtained by any other usual mode of proceedings--- Since plaintiffs had sought recovery of a quantified amount in their suit against defendant and since loss caused to plaintiffs by breach of oral agreement could be measured in terms of money, question of any irreparable loss to plaintiffs did not arise---Existence of all three ingredients, i.e., irreparable loss; balance of convenience and strong prima facie arguable case were necessary, for a court to grant interim injunction---High Court set aside orders passed by Trial court as essential element of irreparable loss to plaintiffs was lacking---Appeal was allowed in circumstances. Mehran Sugar Mills v. Sindh Sugar Corporation Limited 1995 CLC 707; Qasimabad Enterprises v. Province of Sindh 1998 CLC 441; I. Puri Terminals Limited v. Port Qasim Authority 2003 CLD 153; Muhammad Hussain Khan v. N.I.B. Bank Limited 2009 CLD 42; Ghulam Nabi Shah v. Pakistan International Airline Corporation 2013 PLC C.S. 768; Muhammad Kashan v. Coca Cola Export Corporation 2015 CLD 1513; Ghulam Nabi v. Seth Muhamamd Yaqoob PLD 1983 SC 344; Puri Terminal Ltd. v. Government of Pakistan 2004 SCMR 1092; Imtiaz Ali Khan Babar v. Federation of Pakistan 2018 CLD 80; Muhammad…
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