NASIM SIKANDAR, J. --- This Civil. Revision seeks to challenge an order of the Additional District Judge, Lahore dated 28.9.2004 whereby he maintained the order of the Civil Judge 1st Class, Lahore dated 28.5.2004 conforming C.L.R. interim relief/injunction allowed in favour of respondent No. 1.
2. In the plaint filed before the Civil Court at Lahore on 16.2.2004 respondent No. 1, University College of Medicine and Dentistry, Raiwind Road, Lahore, claimed that in response to an advertisement for affiliation published by the defendant/present petitioner, Social Security Hospital, Lahore, they applied for grant of the facility.
It was allowed to them in the terms and conditions settled between the parties conveyed to the plaintiff/University through approval letter/agreement dated 3.7.2002. In terms of the arrangement the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 was allowed to build teaching bays project for the medical students.
Also the plaintiff provided different kinds of facilities, amenities, accessories and medical equipment to strengthen different departments of the Hospital/present petitioner hospital. It was also claimed that till the time of filling of the suit, the plaintiff/present respondent No. 1 invested more than Rs. 31 million and the improvements made as a result thereof were acknowledged not only by the administrative department of defendant but also the Committee of the Punjab Social Security Institution headed by the Minister for Labour. In the plaint it was further claimed that about 300 students were getting their education in the defendant hospital for which the plaintiff employed staff comprising of more than 150 persons. These employees included doctors, surgeons and consultants hired by the plaintiff, who also treated the patients of the defendant/present petitioner hospital. It was further alleged that with a view to blackmail and pressurize the plaintiff, defendant No. 3, Chief Executive, Social Security Hospital, Multan Road, Lahore, issued a letter dated 14.4.2004 for vacation of the hospital without assigning any reason. That notice as described in the plaint to be against agreement, .The law applicable and the facts and was alleged to be mala fide on the face of it. It was also alleged that as per terms and conditions of affiliation settled between the plaintiff /present respondent University all disputes were agreed to be resolved mutually but no notice or advance information before issuance of termination of affiliation letter was ever made to the plaintiff University.
3. The defendants in their written statement claimed that the plaintiff/present respondent University was affiliated on experimental basis only for three months, which was further extended provisionally for three month; that the plaintiff/present respondent University was clearly informed that provisional affiliation was being granted for evaluation and collaboration and that formal agreement would be signed only on satisfaction and approval of the Governing Body of the Punjab Employees Social Security Institution; that even the provisional affiliation was again subject to recognition of the plaintiff by Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (P.M.D.C.); that the alleged agreement dated 3.7.2002 was non-existent and that whatever investment the plaintiff University made in the defendant hospital was only to meet the standards and requirements of P.M.D.C. And not for the benefit or improvement of the patients of the defendant hospital; that the plaintiff University was repeatedly required to obtain the statutory recognition from P.M.D.C., which it failed to procure till the date of filing of the written statement; that ho assurance was ever given to the plaintiff for permanent affiliation, which was more than evident from the chain of correspondence between the parties on the subject; that some honorarium was paid by the plaintiff to some of the doctors engaged/employed by the defendant hospital but it was to compensate them for teaching the students of the University and not for the benefit of the defendant hospital; the notice of vacation was issued in the interest of the institution as well as the students of the plaintiff/present respondent University as non-recognition of P.M.D.C. Has jeopardized the future of these students and lastly that it was the policy of the Governing Body of the defendant hospital that a medical college which enjoyed C.L.R. recognition by P.M.D.C. And had known faculty of professors is affiliated with the Hospital.
4. It appears that the Civil Court in the first instance allowed interim relief against the impugned vacation notices dated 13.4.2004 and 14.4.2004 and subsequently by way of a detailed order dated 28.5.2004 confirmed the same while accepting petition for ad interim injunction.
5. The present petitioner failed in appeal before the Additional District Judge who, as observed above, maintained the order of the Trial Court mostiy for the reasons contained in para 6 of the impugned order dated 28.9.2004, which reads as under:- "6. The perusal of the record shows that admittedly affiliation was given by the appellants to the respondent No. 1 after considering his proposal and application alongwith other applicants in this regard for the temporary period of 3 months which was later on extended to evaluate their performance and working and the respondent No. 1 was informed that the final approval is subject to the approval from P.M.D.C., but it is evident from the record that the matter between P.M.D.C. And the respondent No. 1 is still pending and the respondent No. 1 can get the approval of P.M.D.C.
Authorities. It is also an admitted fact that respondent No. 1 has established hospital and the teaching facilities for the students and they have established the liabilities, facilities and other requirements which are necessary for the purposes. The students have already been enrolled by the respondent No. 1 who have spent time for getting education by the respondent No:
1. In this way I am of the view that at this stage when finally the P.M.D.C. Has not disproved the "sanction" of the respondent No. 1 and it has not yet been finally ascertained by the P.M.D.C., that the respondent No. 1 is not competent to get affiliation/approval, the affiliation cannot be cancelled and that they should not be stopped to run their college when the future of the students are at stake. Besides this act of the appellant by grant of affiliation to the respondent No. 1 for three months is very strange and un-understandable because it was very much in the knowledge of the appellant that the respondent is going to establish a medical college and the medical education completes at least with 5 years and this fact was also crystal clear that after getting the affiliation, respondent will get enrolled medical students and he will get the fees from them for the completion of their medical education. In this way it can rightly be said that the act of appellant in connection with granting affiliation for three months and later its extension for further three months appears to be without justification and mala fide and I am in agreement with the learned counsel for the respondent in this regard that any act of the appellant which is apparently illegal cannot be rectified at any stage. Because if the respondent No. 1 was not functioning according to the standard of the appellant, for affiliation, the appellant was competent to refuse affiliation for said medical college but in the present case, the appellant not only granted the affiliation for three months ,to the respondent No., 1 for the establishment of the Medical College and later on extended the same for further three months which is against prudence. In this way this act of the appellant can rightly be said a mala fide act on their part and it can be said that the appellant want to keep a hanging sword on the respondent No. 1 of cancellation of affiliation. This act of the appellant is meant to damage future life of innocent students who got admission with the respondent No. 1 for their bring future."
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the documents relied upon by both the parties. During arguments learned counsel representing the respondent University has placed on record a letter dated 11.11.2002 issued by Punjab Employees Social Security Institution which governs the respondent hospital. The last para of the letter reads "the institution would sign the formal agreement after expiry of the provisional period subject to the satisfactory results and approval by the Government Body, P.E.S.S.I. However, the collaboration shall remain interim until the university is recognized by P.M.D.C. As being done in case of affiliation of Social Security Hospital, Islamabad with IM&DC." Also he has placed on record a contract of affiliation with Social Security Hospital, Rawalpindi for clinical training of the students of Islamabad Medical and Dental College. .In the last para of that contract the period of affiliation is stated to. Have been extended upto 10 years and the termination of the attachment is made subject to a notice for a period of four years from either side. Both documents support the case of the plaintiff/pres'entertaining respondent that the Institution governing the Hospital has entered into a similar arrangement with anothei College still waiting for affiliation with P.M.D.C. On even softer terms:
7. The defendants in their written reply filed during arguments before me with regard to affiliation of Islamabad Medical and Dental College has blown hot and cold in the same breath. Firstly, they denied any contract or arrangement with the said private college, admittedly not so far recognized by the P.M.D.C. And at the same time 'stated that it is further clarified here that in case of Islamabad Medical and Dental College the College was granted affiliation with the approval of Minister Labour and it is an interim arrangement till the College is recognized by P.M.D.C." The copy of the contract dated 01.12.2004 placed on record by the learned counsel for the respondent University reflects the signatures portion of Dr. M. Nasir Jamal Pasha as well as his counterpart Dr. Ghulam Akbar Niazir Chairman, Islamabad Medical and Dental College.
8. In the perspective of the arguments addressed before me I am of the view that the Court of the first instance as well as the Court of first appeal rightly found the three ingredients for grant of temporary injunction viz. Prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss to be.
Available in the case of the plaintiff/now respondent. The order of the Trial as well as first Appellate Court a part whereof has been reproduced above do contain sustainable reasons to justify grant and maintenance of interim injunction. On the other hand learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to bring home any, of the three requirements for interference by this Court in revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of., Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, viz. The exercise of jurisdiction not vested in the Courts below or failure on their past to exercise their jurisdiction so vested or acting in exercise of their jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Mere fact that an order is adverse to the position taken by a party does not justify interference by this Court in the revisional jurisdiction. Since the orders of the Courts below do not suffer from any of the three infirmities nor these conditions are In any manner answered in the case in this revision petition shall be dismissed.