' ATIR MAHMOOD, J. --- Through this appeal, tI appellant has questioned the legality of order date 27.10.2009 passed by learned Civil Judge Sahiwal whereby the application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151, C.P.C. Filed by the appellant for grant of temporary injunction in a suit for rendition of accounts was dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant owns a shop/property within the area of Ghalla Mandi, Sahiwal; that respondents No, 1 to 3 are self-styled President, Senior Vice President and General Secretary of Anjaman-e-Arhtiyan, Ghalla Mandi, Sahiwal since 2007 whereas respondents No, 4 & 5 are ex-Presidents of the anjaman; that the anjaman is not a registered body; that the crops taken to the mandi by the farmers are kept in heaps where the same after due process are filled in bags; that after filling of bags, a reasonable quantity of crops is left over on the Ghalla Mandi door which is collected by the so-called anjaman through their personal servants through sweep and sold in the open market under the name of sweep (jharu) fund; that the money collected in this way in one year is about Rs, 30,00,000/-; that if any member of the Ghalla Mandi objects to the collection or asks for rendition of accounts, he is thrown out of the mandi by hook or crook; that respondent No, 4, ex-President of the anjaman has misappropriated crores of rupees under the garb of sweep fund and has not tendered any rendition of accounts to any member of the Arhtiyan, Ghalla Mandi, Sahiwal; that respondent No, 4 is still holding a sum of Rs, 10,00,000/- on the pretext that some people have dragged him into civil and criminal cases; that respondent No, 3 being General Secretary under the ex-presidency of Rana Farooq is also holding a sum of Rs, 800,000/- and has not tendered rendition of accounts; that respondents No, 1 to 3 are also collecting a huge amount under the garb of jharu fund and are not presenting the amount so colleted before the members of the anjaman; that the impugned order is based on surmises and conjectures; that the impugned order is against the law and if the appellant is not granted temporary injunction, he will suffer irreparable loss; that the appellant has a prima facie arguable case, therefore, the respondent be restrained from collection of jharu fund till decision of the suit filed by the plaintiff. Learned counsel prays that this appeal be accepted, the impugned order be set aside and the application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 & 2, C.P.C. Filed by the appellant be allowed.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents have controverted the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant on legal as well as on factual aspects. They submit that the suit for rendition of accounts is not maintainable as there is no agreement in-between the parties for rendition of accounts and that the appellant has no locus standi to challenge the constitution of Anjaman Arhtiyan, Ghalla Mandi, Sahiwal as out of 300 commission agents, only the appellant has agitated the matter before the Civil Court; that the ingredients for grant of temporary injunction could not be established by the appellant, as such, the Trial Court has rightly dismissed the application of the appellant under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 & 2, C.P.C. They have placed reliance on the law laid down in cases reported as Mrs. U.K. International Proprietorship concern through Sole Proprietor v. Trading Corporation of Pakistan (2006 CLC 679)", "Abdul Mannan Fakir v.
Province of East Pakistan and others (PLD 1965 Dacca 361)", "Pakistan International Airlines Corporation v. Karachi Municipal Corporation through Chairman/Administrator, Karachi and another (PLD 1994 Karachi 343)", Ch. Muhammad Ali v. Govt. Of West Pakistan and others (PLD 1966 (W.P.) Lahore 335)", Dewan Chand and others v. Balochistan Local Council Election Authority (2000 MLD 1415)" and "Julius Salik v. Returning Officer and 27 others (1989 CLC 2499).
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. From perusal of the plaint it is evident that the appellant has sought rendition of accounts regarding jharu fund which is allegedly being collected and misappropriated by the defendants to the tune of more than Rs, 10 crores. In the application filed by the appellant under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151, C.P.C., the appellant has prayed for injunctive order for restraining the defendants from collection of sweep/jharu fund. The contention of the appellant is that the ex- presidents and general secretary of the anjaman have misappropriated lacs of rupees out of jharu fund and the present office bearers of the anjaman are also collecting and misappropriating crores of rupees out of jharu fund. These allegations against the defendants are yet to the established by the appellant by production of evidence before Civil Court in the suit filed by him.
Mere levelling allegation creates no right in favour of any body. The basic ingredients for grant of temporary injunction, i,e, prima facie case, balance of inconvenience and irreparable loss are missing in this case. Even otherwise, the matter requires fiscal liability. In case, stay order is not granted to the appellant, he is not likely to suffer any irreparable loss as if the suit filed by the appellant is decreed and he is found entitled to any relief in the suit, he can be compensated subsequently. The order passed by learned Court below is in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to point out any illegality or irregularity therein. No interference is called for.
6. For what has been stated above, this appeal has no merit, hence dismissed.
FAO dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.