2013 SCMR 478

This petition arises out of a temporary injunction matter in a suit for

declaration filed by the petitioner against the respondents impugning the
notice for payment of the outstanding amount and seeking a restraint order
that respondents/defendants be directed not to recover the amount of
Rs.7,72,90,784 along with security deposit of Rs.42,72,000 regarding Sui Gas
Meter No.IM 02077276 Consumer No.30245900003.

Learned counsel for the respondents on court query submits that if the
petitioner deposits 50% of the afore-referred penal amount and total current
bill within a week and for the remaining amount furnish a bank guarantee, the
respondent authorities shall not disconnect the sui gas connection. Learned
counsel for the petitioner concern readily agrees to the afore-referred offer.

In view of the fair stand taken by learned counsel for the parties, this petition
is converted into appeal and allowed, the impugned order is set aside and it is
directed that subject to the determination of the amount by the competent
forum they shall deposit the amount in terms of the statement made by
learned counsel for the respondent sui gas company by or before 12-12-2012.
They shall also furnish bank guarantee for the remaining amount within this
period. Till the afore-referred date, the sui gas connection shall not be
disconnected.

1994 SCMR 1040

Since the above point will be in issue before the High Court in the Constitution
petitions pending before it, we would not like to express our views on the
above controversy. The other question before us is, as to whether the above
interlocutory order is just and proper or the High Court should have directed
the respondents to deposit the disputed amount in cash with the Nazir of the
Court instead of Bank Guarantee. In Civil Petition No. 328-K of 1993, we had
passed the following interlocutory order:--

1
"However, it will be open to the respondent to get the consignment released
on depositing the disputed amount with Nazir of the High Court, who will
invest the above amount with M/s. Habib Bank Limited, Court Branch, Karachi
in Khas Deposit Certificates encashable on short notice. The party, who will be
entitled to the above amount shall be entitled to the profits /thereon."

In order to maintain consistency, we are inclined to pass similar order in the

above petitions for leave to appeal. We would, therefore, convert the above
petitions into appeals and would dispose of the same by ordering that the
respondents shall deposit the disputed amount with the Nazir of the High
Court in respect of the consignments which are covered by the writ petitions
and were subject-matters of the interlocutory orders as a condition for gelling
the consignments released. If they have already got the consignments
released against Bank Guarantees, the same shall be substituted by the cash
deposit with the Nazir within a period of two weeks. The Nazir of the High
Court will invest the amounts so deposited after obtaining order from the
Division Bench concerned and after notice to the parties.

2012 CLC 1040 (defendant foreign company)

By means of the present suit, the plaintiff seeks specific performance (and
attendant declaratory and injunctive relief) in respect of a share purchase
contract dated 22-2-2011. The contract was entered into between the
plaintiff and two other individuals as buyers, and the defendant Nos.1 and
2 as sellers, whereby the latter agreed to sell the entire shareholding of the
defendant No.3, comprising of 885,020 shares, to the former for a total sale
consideration of USD 13.5 million.

it is indisputable that a large portion of the sale consideration remains

unpaid and therefore the sellers' interest must also be protected.
Accordingly, I hereby allow the application as prayed, but subject to the
condition that the plaintiff shall furnish a bank guarantee to the satisfaction
of the Nazir of the Court in the sum of USD 5.25 million or its equivalent in
Pakistani rupees. The injunction shall be operative immediately, but shall
automatically stand vacated and recalled if the plaintiff fails to furnish the
bank guarantee within a period of 30 days from today. If the guarantee is

2
not in place within the stipulated period the Nazir shall issue a certificate to
this effect to any defendant who makes an application to him in this regard.

1997 MLD 1304

O.XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199-- Constitutional

petition---Impounding of vehicle of Bank for non-payment of instalments as
per terms of contract---Court, in interest of justice, equity and good
conscience and to safeguard interests of petitioner and that of Bank directed
that petitioner would deposit total outstanding instalments of specified
amount; that for remaining outstanding amount petitioner would execute
Bank guarantee/Insurance guarantee or provide any surety to satisfaction of
Nazir of Court; and `hat after compliance of order of Court, Authorities would
hand over vehicle to petitioner without any further delay.

1993 M L D 814

[Lahore]

Before Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J

Syed MAHMOOD ALI GERDEZI and another---Appellants

Versus

3
Syed RABIA BEG UM and 10 others---Respondents

F.A.O. No.30 of 1991, heard on 16th November, 1992.

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---

----OXXXIX, Rr.1 & 2---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss.l2, 52 & 53---Suit for
possession through specific performance of agreement to sell---No decree for
permanent injunction was prayed for---Temporary injunction whether could
be issued during pendency of suit, wherein no decree for permanent
injunction was prayed for---Provision of O.XXXIX, R.1, C.P.C. applies to all
suits and not necessarily to suit for permanent injunction---Use of word
"any" in R.1 of OXXXIX, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, was of significance as its
user generally conveys sense of all embracing and without any limitation---
Court has, thus, power to grant temporary injunction in a suit which was not
for permanent injunction ---Relief s of injunction and specific performance
being species of the same nature, injunction was generally considered to be
ancillary and adjunct to that of specific performance.

Injunction is a judicial order by which a party is required to do certain act or is

prohibited or restrained from doing some other acts. So, injunction can either
be mandatory or preventive. According to section 52 of the Specific Relief Act,
1877, preventive relief in form of injunction is granted at the discretion of the
Court and may either be temporary or perpetual. Section 53 of the said Act
provides that while temporary injunctions were to continue until specified
time or until further orders of the Court, perpetual injunctions on the other
hand were to continue in perpetuity. Another distinction between the two
kinds of injunctions was that while permanent injunction could only be
granted through a decree made at the conclusion of the hearing, temporary
injunctions could be issued at any stage of suit. Grant of perpetual injunction

4
was regulated by Chapter X of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 while section 53 of
the said Act itself provided that the temporary injunctions were governed by
Code of Civil Procedure.

So far as Civil Procedure Code is concerned, section 94, therefore, empowers

the Court to grant temporary injunction, if it was so prescribed by the Civil
Procedure Code. Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code enumerates
the circumstances in which temporary injunctions may be granted by Court.

Order 39, Rule 1 applies to all suits and not necessarily to suit for permanent
injunction. The use of word "any" in rule is of significance as its user
generally conveys, according to the well-established principles of
interpretation the sense of all embracing and without any limitation.

There appears to be no good reason for the view that the Court has no power
to grant temporary injunction in a suit which is not for permanent injunction.
This conclusion is further fortified from a comparison of the language of rule 2
with rule 1 of Order 39 of C.P.C. While rule 1 uses the expression "in any suit",
Order 39, rule 2 provides for issuance of temporary injunction "in any suit for
restraining the defendant" which obviously has reference to a suit for
permanent injunction. In section 53 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 also, there
is no restriction that temporary injunction can be granted only in a suit for
permanent injunction. The power to grant injunction in various kinds of suits
has always been recognized and Courts have from times immemorial been
issuing injunctions in suits for possession, recovery of money, redemption of
mortgages in order to prevent any injury from being caused to the plaintiff
during the pendency of the suit.

Relief s of injunctions and specific performance are species of same nature

and injunction is generally considered to be ancillary and adjunct to that of
specific performance.

5
A Court is not prohibited from issuing temporary injunction in suits in which a
decree for permanent injunction is not prayed for.

Marghub Siddiqui v. Hamid Ahmad Khan and 2 others 1974 SCMR 519 and
Aijaz Hussain Bhatti and another v. Haji Bagh Ali and 9 others 1985 CLC 261.
ref.

Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, Fourth Edn., p.145; Aiyer's Terms and Phrases, 7th
Edn., p.74; Bank of Bahawalpur v. Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation
Commissioner PLD 1977 SC 164; The Queen v. Rowlands and others 8 QBD
1882; Duck v. Bates 12 QBD 1884; Haji Allah Bakhsh v. Roshan Din 1991 CLC
Headnote 255; Rustam Ali v. Ch. Mukhtar Ahmad Anwar 1987 MLD 394; Fateh
Muhammad v. Muhammad Hanif and another PLD 1990 Lah. 82; Feroze Din
and another v. Tien Ying Lee and others 1987 MLD 2035; Shama Enterprises
(Pvt.) Ltd. v. Malik Ghulam Sarwar and others 1989 MLD 21; Aijaz Hussain
Bhatti and another v. Haji Bagh Ali and 9 others 1985 CLC 261; Molasses
Export Co. Ltd. v. Consolidated Sugar Mills Ltd. 1990 CLC 609; Arshad Ali and
another v. Abdul Rashid and 2 others PLD 1980 Lahore' 382; Mst. Tajbaro w/o
Wahid Gul v. Gopi Chand Singh and others AIR 1938 Pesh. 67; Bantu v. Lehna
and others AIR 1926 Lahore 523; L.D. Meston School Society v. Kashi Nath
Misra AIR 1951 Allahabad 558; Shiromani Gurdawara Parbandhak Committee,
Nankana Sahib v. Banta and others AIR 1926 Lahore 504 and Treatise on
Specific Performance by Frey, 6th Edn. p.538 rel.