' IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN, J.--- Canteen contractor, Sajjad Ahmad, petitioner was issued notice dated April 23, 2005 calling upon him to withdraw business, due to planned developments for the new Session 2005-06 and a changL of College routine and making new arrangements for catering on the college campus.
2. The petitioner feeling aggrieved thereby, challenged the action of college authorities by filing suit in the Court of Senior Civil Judge,Peshawar with prayer that respondent be restrained to ask the petitioner to discontinue his business or evict him from the premises. Along with the suit, an application for the grant of temporary injunction, in the above lines, was also moved. The application having been opposed was accepted by order, dated 7-12-2005 passed by learned Civil Judge, Peshawar and status quo was ordered to be maintained for six months or till final disposal of case whichever come first. An appeal was preferred thereagainst which came up for hearing before learned Additional District Judge, Peshawar. Vide judgment dated 17-1-2006 the appeal was accepted, order of the trial Court was set aside and status quo maintained was withdrawn. The petitioner has filed instant civil revision under section 115, C.P.C. Which is before me for consideration.
3. Mr. Muhammad Tariq Javed Khan, Advocate learned counsel for the petitioner, bitterly criticized the impugned order of learned Appellate Court and attempted to argue that petitioner had successfully made out a good prima facie case for the grant of temporary injunction; that order passed by learned Civil Judge, Peshawar accepting the application of interim injunction is exhaustive and well-reasoned and learned Appellate Court accepted the appeal and reversed the order of the trial Court in haste, without application of independent mind and in total disregard to mandatory provisions of Order XXXIX rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. To augment the contents, reliance was placed on Abdullah Bhai and others v. Ahmad Din PLD 1964 SC 106, Diamond Food Industries Limited v. Joseph Wolf Gmbh & Co. And another 2004 CLD 343 and United Bank Limited through Attorneys v. Messrs Aziz Tanneries (Pvt.) Ltd. Through Chief Executive/Managing Director and 9 others 2004 CLD 1715.
4. Mr. Abdul Latif Afridi, Advocate, representing the respondent, supported the impugned order forcefully maintaining that petitioner is not possessed of any legal character or status within the purview of section 42 of Specific Relief Act, 1877; that his status is merely that of a licensee at the will of the respondent and petitioner cannot impose himself upon the college and its students for catering purposes under any law. The learned counsel added that there were general complaints against the petitioner by the students regarding overcharging for provisions of use of substandard material in edibles, which constrained the College Management to serve the petitioner with the notice in question.
5. I would refrain at this stage from going into the rival contentions of the learned counsel touching the merits of the suit and expressing my opinion thereupon lest it might influence the decision of the trial Court or prejudice the case of one party or the other in the suit which is yet to be heard and decided. I will, therefore, confine myself to the question as to whether the Appellate Court was justified in accepting the appeal and setting aside the order of the trial Court regarding, issuance of temporary injunction. The well-known principles for grant or refusal of temporary injunction are firstly, whether the plaintiff has made out a prima facie good legal case, secondly whether the balance of convenience lies in favour of the grant of injunction and thirdly whether the plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss if the injunction is refused.
6. In the instant case, I find that petitioner has been running the college canteen for the last 36 years without any complaint from any quarter. The impugned notice also does not say so. The petitioner has been regularly paying rent without any default. The petitioner is also shown to have invested substantial amount on running the canteen. The learned trial Judge has given valid and cogent reasons for accepting application of the petitioner and granting temporary injunction. The learned Appellate Court had no justification to take contrary view, accept the appeal and reverse the order of the trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended with justification that learned Appellate Court has not resorted to mandatory provisions of Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. And dealt with the matter in a mechanical manner without application of judicial mind.
7. In view of the above I accept the civil revision, set aside the impugned order, dated 17-1-2006 of the Appellate Court and restore order, dated 17-12-2003 of the trial Court. I make no order as to costs.