Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 12, 54, 55

Law: Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Section: O.XXXIX Rr. 1 , 2, O.XXXIX Rr--1 , 2

Specific Relief Act, 1877 (I of 1877)-- ----Ss. 12, 54 & 55--Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908), O.XXXIX Rr. 1 & 2, O.XXXIX Rr--1 & 2--Suit for specific performance-- Solar system agreement--Dispute--Stay application--Ad- interim injunction--Partly granted—Challenged--Maintainability--Questioned--Interim vs temporary injunction--Distinguished--Appeal--Not maintainable--Balance of convenience--Direction--Early decision of stay application--Taking light from dictum laid down in Shariq Builders and Property Advisors v. Dr. Muhammad Faisal Murad and others (2024 MLD 32), this Court was of considered view that instant appeal was not maintainable wherein terms “ad interim injunction” and “temporary injunction” had been distinguished while holding that “ad interim” would mean for meantime (to make interim gap) and refusal of “ad interim” injunction would not mean a case “decided.”--So far as judgments cited by counsel for appellant were concerned, same were distinguishable on facts, therefore, not fruitful for him--Crux of arguments advanced by counsel was that appellant had been suffering due to inoperativeness of solar system, despite having paid an extra amount in terms of agreements and facing huge monetary loss as time went by--Anxiousness of counsel regarding nature of interim relief might be encapsulated in famous proverb: “till antidote reaches, snake-bitten may die.”--Since controversy before this Court arose out of an order relating to ad interim injunction and stay application of appellant was still pending before learned trial court, therefore, this Court refrained from expressing any opinion on merits of case--Meaning of balance of convenience in favour of plaintiff was that if an injunction was not granted and suit was ultimately decided in favour of plaintiff inconvenience caused to plaintiff would be greater than that which would be caused to defendant if an injunction was granted but suit was ultimately dismissed--Although it was called balance of convenience, it was really balance of inconvenience and it was for plaintiffs to show that inconvenience to be…