Brief facts giving rise to the present revision petition are to the effect that Exceed (SMC-Pvt.)
Ltd./plaintiff-petitioner herein had filed a suit for declaration with permanent injunction against the defendants/respondents herein in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Islamabad. Alongwith the suit the petitioner filed an application for grant of temporary injunction under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2 C.P.C.
The defendants/respondents have also filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC.
2. Arguments of the learned counsel for the parties have been heard on both these applications, which were dismissed vide order dated 22.7.2006 meaning thereby the interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner was refused. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which came up for hearing before the Addl. District Judge, Islamabad. Alongwith the appeal the petitioner also prayed for grant of interim relief restraining the respondents from getting encashed the guarantee submitted by the petitioner in any manner, whatsoever. The learned Lower Appellate Court vide the impugned order dated 23.9.2006 turned down the request for grant of ad-interim injunction and issued summons to Respondent No. 2 for 7.10.2006. The said order has been assailed by the petitioner through the instant revision petition.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents at the very outset objected that the appeal against the rejection of the application for temporary injunction of the petitioner is still subjudice before the Lower Appellate Court and final order on the same has not been passed. The Court has only refused the grant of ad-interim relief in the application filed by the petitioner that too has not been disposed of finally. Further contended that the impugned order is not covered within the ambit of definition of "case decided".
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in Paragraph No. 3 of the order, the trial Court has declined the interim relief. The revision petition against the said order has competently been filed. He placed his reliance on the case of Mst. Nazir Begum and 2 others vs. Muhammad Tahir and another (2005 CLC 925).
5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. It is admitted position that the plaintiff/petitioner has filed a suit for declaration with permanent injuntion. Alongwith the suit the plaintiff/petitioner filed an application for temporary injunction, which was contested by the defendants/respondents and the application of the petitioner was dismissed by the trial Court on 22.7.2006. The said order has been impugned by the plaintiff/petitioner before the Lower Appellate Court, meaning thereby that the appeal against the rejection of the application for temporary injunction has not been finally adjudicated upon by the Lower Appellate Court. There are possibilities that after hearing the final arguments on. the appeal the Lower Appellate Court may accept the same and grant temporary injunction to the petitioner.
Section 115 C.P.C. envisaged that the High Court may call for the record of any case which has been 'decided' by any Court subordinate to such High Court and in which no appeal lies thereto. And sub-section (2) of Section 115 C.P.C. further provided that the District Court may exercise the powers conferred on the High Court by sub-section (1) in respect of any case 'decided' by a Court subordinate to such District Court in which no appeal lies and the amount or value of the subject matter whereof does not exceed the limits of the appellate jurisdiction of the District Court. From the plaint reading of Section 115 C.P.C. it is manifestly clear that a revision lies against a "case decided". The order regarding injunction is covered within the "case decided." In the instant case on the date of entertaining the revision petition the Lower Appellate Court refused to grant ad-interim relief as the appeal before the Lower Appellate Court was against the order of refusal of interim injunction to the petitioner. That appeal is still pending and the revision would be competent if the appeal of the petitioner is accepted or rejected by the Lower Appellate Court.
7. The impugned order dated 23.9.2006 was just an "ad-interim" in nature. The word "ad-interm" is distinguishable than the word "temporary". "Ad-interim" would mean for the meantime (to make the interim gap) while the word "temporary" mean for a certain, fixed period therefore, refusal of the "ad-interim" injunction would not amount to a case 'decided'. The appeal of the petitioner for grant of temporary injunction has not been finally adjudicated upon by the Lower Appellate Court, thus, the provisions of Section 115 C.P.C. is not attracted in the present case. Reliance in this context can be placed to the case of Ishtiaq Khan vs. Administrator/Chairman, Town Committee Shahpur District Sargodha and another (1998 M LD 615).
8. The other aspect of the case is that the revisional power under Section 115 CPC primarily intended for correcting the errors made by the subordinate Courts in exercise of their jurisdiction and the discretionary order of the subordinate Courts cannot be interfered with unless found fanciful or arbitrary. Reliance in this context can be placed to the case of Shahzada Muhammad Umar Beg vs. Sultan Mahmood Khan and another (PLD 1970 SC 139). The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any irregularity or illegality in exercise of jurisdiction or violation of statutory provisions or principle of natural justice. Reliance in this context can be placed to the case of Muhammad Swaleh and another vs. Messrs United Grain & Fodder Agencies (PLD 1964 SC 97).
10. In view of the above discussion, I find no substance in this revision petition which is dismissed.