' This appeal has been filed against ad interim order passed by learned Single Judge on 5-11-2012 in Suit No,1494 of 2012. The appellants have filed the suit seeking declaration, permanent injunction and other reliefs against the defendant who held the office of Secretary General of plaintiff No, 1/Pakistan Broadcasting Association. He was suspended on 24-10-2012. Against him there were allegations of misappropriation of funds and mismanagement which were made basis for his suspension. During the pendency of the suit the appellant obtained ad interim order, which is reproduced as follows:--- "25 October 12 Mr. Jam Asif Mehmood, Mr. Saim Hashmi, and Wasif Riaz, Advocates for the plaintiff 1..
2. The Board also appointed Mr. Shakeel Masood as Secretary-General of PBA for the period of suspension of the defendant. The grievance of the plaintiffs is that even after his suspension, the defendant is posing himself as Secretary-General and is creating hindrance in the smooth running of the affairs of the PBA. Issue notice to the defendant for 8-11-2012. Till the parties are directed to maintain status quo."
' Summonses were served on the defendant who moved several applications which were listed for orders on 5-11-2012.. On that day appellants waived notice and sought time to file counter- affidavits to the listed-applications. The court while granting time held as under:--- "5-11-2012 ' Messrs Jam Asif Mehmood, Saim Hashmi and Behzad Haider, Advocates for the Plaintiffs ' M/s Abid S. Zuberi, Muhammad Haseeb Jamali and Ayan Memon, Advocates for defendant 2 to 6 Without entering into the merits of the case and notwithstanding the status quo order dated 25-10-2012 the plaintiff No,4 is restrained from acting as Secretary-General of the Association till next date of hearing but affairs of the Association be carried out in accordance with the Articles of Association."
'Normally when the suit is pending and interim orders are passed the Appellate Court does not interfere. However, we have noted that dispute in the suit pertains to legality of suspension of the respondent as Secretary-General. Until illegality of the suspension is decided, the learned Single Judge without hearing the appellants and without hearing the applications on merits ought not to have passed orders suspending the working of the person who was working as General-Secretary in place of the respondent. The impugned order in the circumstances was not justified. We therefore, set aside the impugned order and direct the learned Single Judge to decide all the applications on the next date of hearing. In case the appellant fails to proceed with the matter then the Court would be free to pass order in accordance with law. This High Court Appeal is disposed of in the above terms.