1. ' The appellant has preferred this appeal against the order dated 12-8-2002 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court whereby his application under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. (C.M.A.
2. No,3305 of 1999) has been disposed of, inter alia, with the observations that the appellant/plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case, balance of convenience not in favour of grant of injunction.
3. In substance injunction as prayed has been declined.
4. ' Brief facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that the appellant instituted a suit for performance of contract and along with the plaint he filed an application under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2 read with section 151, C.P.C. With a prayer that the defendants, its officers, servants, agents and persons claiming through them, directly or indirectly, be restrained from leasing, allotting, auctioning the Plot No,ST-4A and ST-4/6, Paposh Terminal, Block-5A, Nazimabad, Karachi till disposal of the suit. The above application came up for hearing before the learned single Judge who disposed of the same by way of the order impugned herein, as above.
5. ' We have given due consideration to the arguments of Mr. Mansoorul Arifin, learned counsel for appellant, Mr. Muhammad Sarwar Khan learned Additional Advocate-General and Mr. Zafar Ahmed Khan, learned counsel for respondents Nos . 2 and 3 . With their assistance, we have examined the documents referred to by them during the course of their arguments. The admitted fact is that the suit is pending decision wherein, inter alia, the question 'whether the plaintiff's bid was accepted by the defendant, if so, its effect" is to be determined. Thus the validity of the contract, if any, is to be seen at the time of final disposal of the suit at ? This stage the only question which reads to be decided is whether the respondents be restrained from leasing, allotting abovementioned plots.
6. ' On perusal of the order dated 29-4-2005 in this appeal, it transpired that Mr. Naseem Qamar learned counsel, representing respondents Nos.2 and 3 had stated that Government had abandoned the idea of disposing of the bus stop in case i.e, the plots involved in the matter. Mr. Zafar Ahmed Khan, learned counsel now appearing for the said respondents, confirms in his arguments that the position as regards the said plots remains the same. He, however, opposes this appeal and in support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on case of City Schools (Pvt.)
7. Limited Lahore Cantt. v. Privatization Commission, Government of Pakistan and others (2002 SCM R 1150) and the case of Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Housing and Physical Planning Department Lahore and 4 others v. Muhammad Tauheed (2003 YLR 1411). Learned Additional Advocate-General has shared his views.
8. Since learned counsel for respondents Nos.2 and 3 states that the Government has abandoned the idea of disposing the plots in question and the learned A.A.-G. Has shared that view, without going into intricacies, we order that the official respondents will maintain status of the plot in question in terms of their statement made before this Court till disposal of suit which shall be decided within three months excluding summer vacations and in case the respondents/ defendants intended to cause any variation in their statements, they shall bring that in the knowledge of learned trial Court and seek further orders thereon in its discretion.
9. ' The appeal and listed application are disposed of.