Case Details

Citation(s)
2025 SLG 123 2025 SLD 123 2025 PLJ 1
Peshawar High Court
C.R. No. 142 of 2023, decided on 22.5.2023. Date of hearing: 5.5.2023.
IQBAL AHMED KASI, J.
Mr. Muhammad Akram Shah, Advocate for Petitioners. M/s. Muhammad Riaz Ahmed & Bahlol Khan Kasi, Advocates for Private
Respondents.

DR. SADRAK JALAL AND ANOTHER--PETITIONERS

VERSUS

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE DIOCESES OF KARACHI AND BALOCHISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY DIOCESAN OFFICER FATIMA JINNAH ROAD KARACHI AND 6 OTHERS--RESPONDENTS

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O.XXXIX Rule. 1, 2

Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 42, 54

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908)--

----O.XXXIX Rr. 1 & 2--Specific Relief Act, (I of 1877), Ss. 42 & 54--Application for temporary injunction was allowed--Appeal--Allowed--Conditions for grant of temporary injunction were fulfilled by petitioner--No specific age of retirement--No relation of master and servant between parties--Challenge to--Number of personnel working at Christian Hospital, with age of above 65 years, which showed that there was no specific age of retirement--As finding of appellate Court that there was relation between Respondent No. 2 and petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 were of master and servant, was concerned, High Court had scrutinized all record but did not find any document, which shows that there was relationship between parties--On other hand, there were certain documents, which show that Christian Hospital, had its own Constitution--In a case where temporary injunction is claimed, plaintiff has only to make out that he has a good prima facie case, meaning thereby, a serious question is to be tried in suit and that in event of success, if injunction is not issued, he will suffer irreparable injury--The petitioners, fulfilled all those conditions, therefore, petitioners had a prima facie case in their favour, as such, irreparable loss in their favour developed, thus, balance of convenience also lie in favour of petitioners--Revision petition allowed.

 

ORDER
 

Through the instant petition, petitioners have challenged the validity of the order dated 02.05.2023 (“the impugned order”) passed by the Additional District Judge-V, Quetta, (“the appellate Court”), whereby, the appeal filed by the Respondents No. 1,3 to 7, under Order XLIII Rule 1(R) CPC against the order dated 07.12.2022 passed by Senior Civil Judge-III, Quetta (“the trial Court”) has been allowed and the order of trial Court on the application Under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs has been set-aside.

🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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