Ghazi Mining private limited company vs Shahid Hussain O — 2026 MLD 89 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court

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

Ghazi Mining private limited company VS Shahid Hussain O. XXXIX, Rr 1 & 2---Specific Relief act (I of 1877), S. 12---Suit for specific performance---Temporary injunction, seeking of---Essential ingredients for injunction, absence of---Petitioner/ plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance on the basis of an agreement allegedly executed between him and respondent /defendant, however, said document was not a registered document---Moreover, its authenticity was at stake as one of its marginal witnesses had initiated criminal proceedings by registering an FIR against one of its executants i.e. (plaintiff/petitioner) alleging therein that his signature on the alleged agreement were fake---according to the lease agreement executed between the respondent and Mine and Minerals Department, GB, as well as per relevant Mining Rules/Laws any such further agreement was not permissible---admittedly, on the same subject matter the petitioner/plaintiff also filed another suit which was sub-judice before Civil Court---Record revealed that the Work Order in respect of suit-mine had been issued in favor of answering respondent/defendant by competent authority vide relevant letter---Injunction is a form of equitable relief and is to be issued in aid of equity and justice but not in aid of injustice---For grant of such relief, it is mandatory for the person seeking injunction not only to establish that the petitioner had a prima facie case, but also that balance of convenience is on his side and that he will suffer irreparable injury/loss unless he is protected through an interim relief during the pendency of the suit---as such the essential requirements for grant of interim relief are (i) prima facie case (ii) balance of convenience (iii) irreparable loss---In the present case, after going through the facts mentioned in the plaint, supported documents attached with the plaint, and the law on the subject; the prayer for specific performance of contract by the plaintiff/petitioner, become itself contrary to the fact that prior to issuance of work order from the concerned competent authority, how an agreement could be executed over a subject matter not in existence that too, in contravention of law and rules which regulate the mining activities in the area---Respondent/defendant, who held a valid lease of the suit mine in his name, executed a valid contract with Minerals and Mining Department, GB, for excavation of suit mine in accordance with the rules/laws regulating the mining activities in the area and validly issued Work Order issued by the competent authorities in his name, had a much better arguable case as compared to the plaintiff/petitioner---Furthermore, all the impugned transportation permits had been issued by competent authorities in favor of respondent/defendant and another suit filed by the plaintiff/petitioner on the same subject matter was sub-judice in Civil Court which made the stance of the plaintiff doubtful---There was also no apprehension of irreparable loss---If the suit of petitioner/plaintiff was decreed as prayed for he may be compensated with the damages as claimed in the plaint, on the basis of which the plaintiffs/petitioner sought temporary injunction for suit mine---Thus, the plaintiff/petitioner neither managed to establish a better case than the defendants/respondents, as his whole claim in the plaint was for payment of damages and his due share in the profit in the suit mine; hence, there was no chance of irreparable loss to the plaintiff as he would be entitled in case of decree of his suit---The balance of convenience was also not in favour of the plaintiff/respondents in the present case, because in case of granting injunction the defendants shall be deprived of a vested right of mining lease which would cause mental agony to him which could not be compensated in money terms---In order to be entitled for interim relief, the claimant must establish all the ingredients for grant of interim relief, in his favour---Thus, the plaintiff had not been able to establish any one of the three ingredients for grant of interim relief---District Court had rightly accepted the appeal filed by the respondent/defendant and had set aside the order passed by the Civil Court and rejected the application under O.XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2, C.P.C., filed by the petitioner/plaintiff---Chief Court maintained the impugned judgment/order passed by District Court---Civil revision, filed by plaintiff, being merit-less, was dismissed, in circumstances.

Ghazi Mining private limited company vs Shahid Hussain O — 2026 MLD 89 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 MLD