Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section:

  Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----OXXXIX, Rr.l & 2---Ad interim order---Meaning and scope---An ad interim order would be an order which would remain in force until further order---Such an order which provisionally decided the case by allowing the maintenance of the status quo for indefinite period until further order was a case decided as it allowed a state of things to continue indefinitely till further order---Such order which was passed by the Court apparently after applying its mind to the contentions and averments of the plaintiff made, in his suit as well as in his affidavit in support of application under OXXXIX, Rr.l & 2, C.P.C. by all means would be a judicial order.--[Words and phrases]. Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ---OXXXIX, Rr.1 & 2---Temporary injunction, grant of---Court while granting a temporary injunction, has to take into consideration firstly, that the prima facie case was made out by the applicant; secondly that irreparable damage or injury would accrue to the applicant if injunction was not granted to him, and thirdly that inconvenience which would be caused from withholding the injunction, would be comparatively greater than that which was likely to arise from granting it or in other words the balance of inconvenience would be in favour of applicant. Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---- ---O-XXXIX, Rr.l & 2 and S.115---Ad interim order---Revision against--Maintainability of---Ad interim order which had provisionally decided the case by allowing the maintenance of status quo for indefinite period until further order, would be a "case decided" within meaning of S.115, C.P.C. and as such revision application would lie against that order especially when that order appeared to have been passed by Trial Court arbitrarily and without taking into consideration provisions of R. 3 of O , SIX, C.P.C, Arts Council of Pakistan v. Riazuddin Pirzada P L h 1969 Kar. 349 and Bashir Ahmed Khan v. Qaiser Ali Khan and 2 others P L D 1973 S C 507 ref. Malik Muhammad Sadiq for Petitioner. Abdul Majid Khan and Munib Ahmed Khan for Respondents. Date of hearing: 18th May, 1987. JUDGMENT This Revision Application under…