1. ' ARSHAD NOOR KHAN, J.---This revision application has been directed against the judgment dated 1-11-2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (H) Sukkur in Civil Appeal No,04/08, whereby the order passed by the learned 1st Senior Civil, Judge Sukkur in Suit No,163/07, whereby injunction application filed by the applicant was dismissed, has been maintained.
2. ' The facts leading to the present application in brief are that the applicant was awarded work of construction of interior development and refurbishment of Regional Tax Office, Sukkur on 12-12- 2005 by way of open tender for the contract price of Rs,26,886,162 as successful bidder and the applicant thereafter started the work in accordance with the specification of the contract but subsequently as per assertion of the department the applicant did not complete the work within the stipulated period and there were certain irregularities and lapses on his part enumerated by the department vide their letter dated 30th May 2007. As per assertion of the applicant he was not at fault of those lapses. But subsequently the respondents cancelled his contract vide letter dated 21st September, 2007 which the applicant did not receive directly but was informed through messages from the company to whom the work was subsequently awarded therefore, the applicant filed suit for declaration to the effect that cancellation of the contract vide letter dated 21st September, 2007 was null and void and is of no legal effect and consequential relief thereby restraining the defendant to implement the cancellation order, was also prayed. Along with the suit an injunction application under Order XXXIX, Rules l & 2, C.P.C. Was also filed. The respondents after receipt of notice of the suit as well as injunction application filed their written statement as well as counter affidavit, inter alia, denying therein, the allegations contained in the plaint as well as in injunction application. It was also asserted in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents that the applicant did not carry out the construction work himself and had also awarded the contract to some other strangers and sub-contractors without the consent and approval of the respondent and that the contract subletted by the applicant to the subcontractors and the work of the subcontractors was below the standard and specification of the contract and that the applicant delayed the construction work and subsequently his pace of work was very slow and he did not complete the work within the stipulated period. Therefore, he was -served with the letters and reminders to complete the work as well as to start the work of 3rd floor but he avoided and claimed the escalation in prices quoted by him as such his work was cancelled. The learned trial Court after hearing of learned counsel for the parties dismissed the injunction application vide order dated 10th April, 2008 the applicant being aggrieved against the order passed by the trial Court preferred Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No,4/08 which was entrusted to the learned Additional District Judge
(H) Sukkur who after hearing of learned counsel for the parties dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order passed by the learned trial Court, hence the present revision application.
3. ' I have heard the applicant in person. He vehemently contended that the learned Courts below committed an error while dismissing the injunction application and did not consider that the applicant was not at fault and the respondent without just and sufficient cause dismissed the injunction application and said cancellation order was not directly served on the applicant and the said cancellation of the work was penal in action which they could not do so and the act of the respondent is void ab initio in cancellation of the contract and the applicant has good prima facie case in his favour and he will suffer irreparably in case if, the respondents will not allow him to complete the work. In support of his contention he has relied upon the cases of Muhammad Shafi and others v. L,D.A. And others (1993 CLC 2482), Motosons v. Trustees of the Port of Karachi (1998 CLC 1261), Nasim Ahmed v. Salim Ahmad Khan (1990 CLC 1299), Mansur Ahmed v. Kalipada Chattopadhya and others (PLD 1959 Dacca 498), Amir Ahmad v. Province of Punjab and others (1991 CLC 1624), Gulzar Masih and others v. Sardar Ali and others (1991 CLC 1455), and Noor Muhammad v. Civil Aviation Authority and another (1987 CLC 393).
4. ' Mr. Bhajandas Tejwani Advocate for the respondents vehemently contended that the applicant was at fault and not completed the work within the stipulated period in spite of the letter and reminders to him therefore, the contract was cancelled and after cancellation of the contract and during pendency of appeal before the appellate Court, the work was awarded to another company and now the construction work is at the verge of completion and any order passed against the respondent will directly hit to the company to whom the work has subsequently been allotted and they could not be condemned unheard. According to him there are concurrent findings of the Courts below, therefore, the said findings could not disturb in revisional jurisdiction of this Court.
5. ' I have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and have gone through the material available before me.
6. For the purpose of grant of interim injunction, it is incumbent upon the applicant to establish that there exist good prima facie case in his favour and balance B of inconvenience also lies in his favour and that he will suffer irreparable loss and injury, in case, if the injunction is refused. I have considered the contentions of the respective parties in the perspective of the aforesaid ingredients of the interim injunction. Undisputedly the work was awarded to 'the applicant in the month of December 2005 and thereafter he did not complete the work within the period specified in the contract. The respondents have also issued letters and reminders thereby enumerating the lapses on the part of the applicant and in spite of the receipt of the letters dated 30th May, 2007, the applicant did not accelerate the pace of work nor complete it within the time. The attitude and conduct of the applicant has been suffered from the record to the effect that during the course of construction work he insisted for escalation in the prices of the construction material but he has not pointed out any clause of the contract, which has not been produced before this Court, to show that he was entitled for any claim, in case, if there was such a dispute in between him and the respondent over escalation of cost of construction. It was incumbent upon him to complete the work and had to claim the said escalation by way of filing suit for recovery. The applicant was also served with notice by the respondents dated 7th August, 2007 whereby he was also asked to intimate his opinion for financial claim at the earliest but the said opinion was also not submitted before the respondents however, the applicant was insisting for escalation in the prices. Sufficient material is available on record, which remains uncontroverted, to show that the applicant was at fault in completion of the work as per specification and, in case, if he had any grievance he has ample opportunity to challenge the same by way of filing the suit for damages which is the appropriate remedy under these circumstances. The remaining work has also been awarded by the respondents to some other company and the construction work is at the verge of completion which has also not been controverted by the applicant as such the injunction, if any, granted in favour of the applicant will hamper the construction work and construction work could not be suspended or stayed in view of observation made by Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Malik Manzoor Hussain v. Mohammad Bashir and others reported in 1980 SCM R 366. Both the Courts have taken into consideration each and every aspect of the E matter while refusing the injunction application and I have gone through the orders passed by the lower Courts and found that the orders impugned herein does not suffer from any illegality or from jurisdictional defect. The applicant has E therefore not made out a prima facie case against the concurrent findings of the Courts below to grant him the discretionary relief, as such I am not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by both the lower Courts. The applicant has all the opportunities to claim damages, in case, he finally succeeds in his suit. It is settled principle of law that the damages, if any, which could be measured in terms of money, the settled rule is that injunction could not be granted. The case law relied F upon by the applicant, in my humble opinion are distinguishable from the circumstances of the present case and are inapplicable.
7. ' For the aforesaid reasons and circumstances I do not find any merit in this revision application, which is hereby dismissed summarily along with listed application.