' HAMID ALI MIRZA, J.-- This civil petition for leave to appeal is directed against judgment, dated 2nd August, 2005 in H.C.A (sic) Bench of the High Court Karachi (sic) XXXIX rules 1 and 2 read with section 151, C.P.C. In Suit No,604 of 2005 filed by the petitioner was, dismissed as such the interim relief was declined and order of learned Single Judge dated 15-7-2005 was maintained.
2. Facts of the case need not be reiterated as the same have been stated in the impugned judgment as well as in the memo of petition.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record .
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has conceded that he did not submit tender by the target date i.e, 25th April, 2005 though he received the letter issued by the concerned Ministry on 23rd April, 2005, through the said letter bids were kept in abeyance but the petitioner was not stopped from submitting bids on time. Admittedly published notice was merely an invitation to offer whereas terms of reference were made available to the petitioner on 7-4-2005 which inter alia contained stipulation as to submission of pay order of 20 million as bid money which was refundable. It also appears, from the record that successor bidder would be entitled to claim commission as such it being money, for which there being compensation in money, hence no irreparable loss could be said to be caused, as such one of the ingredients for grant of interim relief/injunction would be missing. So far balance of convenience, second ingredient for grant of interim injunction, was also not in favour of the petitioner as stoppage of entire process whereunder about 500 people were to be provided housing would be frustrated if the same by way of injunction is to be stopped. So far third ingredient of there being prima facie case, which the petitioner also has failed to make out as he could not bring his case within four corners, of section 42 of the Specific Relief Act as no legal character or right to property existed in favour of the petitioner to be' claimed considering that there was only invitation to submit bid for grant of consultancy which did not create any legal character or right to property in favour of the petitioner.
As the petitioner could not make out a prima facie case for grant of interim relief of temporary injunction, therefore, learned Division Bench and the Single Judge of the High Court of Sindh were legally justified in declining to grant interim relief asked for by the petitioner. Besides above, it may also be observed that interlocutory orders, are not to be A interfered with in the constitutional jurisdiction by this Court unless interlocutory order passed is illegal, fanciful, arbitrary, or capricious, or against the settled proposition of law as laid down by this Court in (i) Ramzan Sugar Mills Ltd.
And others, v. Mian Miraj-ud-Din and others, 1994 SCM R 2281 and (ii) Habib Bank Ltd. And others, v.
Syed Zia-ulHassan Kazmi 1998 SCM R 60. The case-law cited by learned counsel for the petitioner
(i) AIR 1969 SC 1081 at 1087; (ii) AIR 1996 Delhi 343; (iii) AIR 1980 Cal. 7; (iv) SBLR 2001 K. 661; (v) AIR 1991 SC 101 at 192; (vi) 2001 YLR 1107 and (vii) AIR 1994 All. 243 , is inapt to the facts of the instant case.
5. In the circumstances case for no grant of interim relief/injunction having been made out and no legal or factual infirmity with the impugned judgment has been shown, consequently we find that no case for grant of leave to appeal is, made out, hence leave to appeal is declined and the petition is dismissed. Interim order, dated 4-8-2005 granted by this Court is vacated.