' The defendant-petitioner has by this petition called in question the propriety of the order dated 18-9-1979 whereby the learned Additiona 1 District Judge, Rawalpindi had granted to the respondent the temporary injunction prayed for.
2. It was proclaimed that Mr. H. L. Hayat was a moderator of the Synod of the United Prespyterian Church of Pakistan duly elected in the annual general elections, but the defendant-petitioner, on the basis of a counter claim was said to have launched a campaign against the elected administration and cancelled the authority of Mr. Piyar Saroya who happened to be a general attorney and rent collector of the Synod, and that he had threatened him to desist from managing the affairs of the Synod with reference to its property and from collecting rent from the tenants. The attorney, therefore, filed a suit in the name of the Synod for perpetual injunction restraining the petitioner from interfering with the management of the property of the Synod and also from acting as a moderator. An application for a temporary injunction was also moved with the suit. It was refused by the trial Court, but the same was granted in appeal by the learned Additional District Judge.
3. It was observed by the learned Additional District Judge that Mr. P. Saroya was appointed general attorney by the Synod and not by the moderator, and that unless his appointment was cancelled by the Synod, the plaintiff-respondent was entitled to continue to work as general attorney. The petitioner was therefore restrained from interfering with the affairs and the property of the Synod.
4. The dispute, as it appears from the plaint, relates to the so-called management of the property by the former administrative body. It is asserted on the other hand that the alleged elections as held in April, 1979, were reviewed and the new results were declared some times in June, 1979, whereby the petitioner was unequivocally declared elected as a moderator. I need not go into at this stage whether or not the elections were properly held, but the fact remains unquestioned that the petitioner has, as observed by the trial Court, taken over as moderator and has started managing the property of. The Church. Various documents were produced and the trial Court was of the view that the tenants have since attorney to the petitioner and he is collecting rent from them. Because of the control taken over by the petitioner, it was not feasible at this stage to have disturbed the working of the institution. It may not be overlooked that in case the existing arrangement is interfered with, the institution is likely to suffer a loss which, in the ordinary circumstances, one may not be able to calculate in terms of money, and thus the balance would all be upset.
5. The suit was filed in the name of and for the benefit of the Synod with a view not to dispute in particular the appointment and removal of the general attorney, and for that reason lack of authority to remove him could not be made a basis for issue of a temporary injunction. Therefore, the learned Additional District Judge, while granting the temporary injunction had, in the exercise of his jurisdiction, acted illegally and with material irregularity.
6. For the foregoing reasons the petition is accepted, the order of the learned Additional District Judge under revision is set aside and the application for temporary injunction is dismissed with no order as to costs.