2009 CLC 406 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Full text

DAEWOO PAKISTAN MOTORWAY SERVICES LIMITED through Chief Executive VS SUN SHINE SERVICE (REGD) through Chief Executive Officer 1974 SCMR 519, 1986 CLC 303, 1988 CLC 1261, 2000 CLC 1722, PLD 1971 Kar. 35, PLD 2008 SC 146, Civil Procedure Code --Order XXXIX of C.P.C. Temporary Injunctions and Interlocutory Orders--1 , Civil Procedure Code --Order XXXIX of C.P.C. Temporary Injunctions and Interlocutory Orders--2 , Code of Civil Procedure 1908--104 , Easements Act 1882--52 , Interim injunction--Term , Specific Relief Act 1877--21 , Specific Relief Act 1877--42 , Specific Relief Act 1877--56 , Termination--Term , Transfer of Property Act 1882--105 , Ss. 21, 42 & 56---Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S.105---Easements Act (V of 1882), S.52--- Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.104 & O.XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2---Interim injunction---Agreement of license---Termination---Plaintiff was licensee of defendant company and was running business at the premises of defendant---On termination of license, plaintiff resisted his eviction by filing civil suit, wherein Trial Court granted interim injunction in his favour---Validity---Reasonableness of temporary injunction should be judged by principles like prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable loss, conduct of parties, nature of suit, time limit likely to be absolved in it, stakes of parties, workability and reasonableness of order proposed to be passed---Plaintiff failed to make out a case for grant of temporary injunction in his favour, as he was only a license holder on the basis of which, no suit for declaration, injunction or specific performance could be filed and was maintainable---At the most, if plaintiff succeeded in the suit, he could recover damages suffered in consequence of cancellation of agreement or dispossession from property---No irreparable injury was likely to be suffered, which could not be compensated in terms of money---Recovery of damages was declaratory remedy eventually---Prima facie the contract was in the nature of revocable license, the period of which had already expired and remedy available to plaintiff was by way of damages---Plaintiff in the garb of injunction could not seek grant of license, which otherwise would be illegal---Order of interim injunction granted under O.XXXIX, Rr. 1 and 2, C.P.C. by Trial Court was set aside---Appeal was allowed in circumstances.