Citation Name: 2024 MLD 1557 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case Dr. Sadrak Jala vs Bishop Fredric

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Citation Name: 2024 MLD 1557 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case Dr. Sadrak Jala VS Bishop Fredrick Johan O.XXXIX, Rr. 1&2---Specific Relief act (I of 1877), Ss.42 & 54---Suit for declaration and injunction---Interim injunction---Pre-conditions, absence of---Suit was with regard to managing the affairs of hospital in question---Trial Court declined to issue interim injunction in favour of respondents / plaintiffs but Lower appellate Court passed interim injunction against petitioner / defendant---Validity---Interlocutory order of injunction under O.XXXIX, R.1 & 2, C.P.C. can be passed by Court only if plaintiff proves that he / she has prima facie case, who is likely to suffer irreparable loss and injury if injunction is refused and balance of convenience is also in his / her favour---In establishing prima facie case, plaintiff needs not establish his title---It would be sufficient for plaintiff to show that he has a fair question to raise as to existence of his rights and that till such question is ripe for trial, a case is made out for preservation of property in status quo---'Irreparable injury' means such injury which cannot be adequately remedied by damages---Remedy by damages would be inadequate if compensation ultimately payable to plaintiff in case of success in suit would not place him in a position in which he was before injunction was refused---'Balance of convenience' means comparative mischief or inconvenience to parties---Inconvenience to plaintiff, if temporary injunction is refused, would be balanced and compared with that to the defendant if it is granted---If scale of inconvenience leans to the side of plaintiff, then interlocutory injunction should be granted---Respondents / plaintiffs failed to fulfill all such conditions, and did not have good prima facie case in their favour---Irreparable loss in favour of respondents / plaintiffs was not developed nor balance of convenience laid in their favour---High Court set aside the order passed by Lower appellate Court in favour of respondents / plaintiffs and restored that of the Trial Court---Revision was allowed accordingly.

Citation Name: 2024 MLD 1557 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case Dr. Sadrak Jala vs Bishop Fredrick Johan O — 2024 MLD 1557 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 MLD