' The captioned appeal has been directed against the impugned order dated 19.04.2014, passed by the learned District Judge Muzaffarabad, whereby ad-interim application filed by appellant- plaintiff was dismissed,
2. The precise facts culminating into filing of the instant appeal are that plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs,21,25,522/- against respondents-defendants in the Court below on 17.03.2014. It is claimed in the suit that Respondent-Defendant No, 1 obtained land comprising Survey Nos. 201, 203, 204 and 207 measuring 86 kanals 6 marlas situated in village Khun Bandway, belonging to appellant-plaintiff and pro-forma Respondents-Defendants No, 8 and 9 through lease agreement dated 01.09.2012. After obtaining the above land on lease, Defendant No, 1 has given construction of Neelum, Jhelum Hydro Power Project', for its completion to a Chines Company viz. C.G.G.C. On the basis of the aforesaid agreement appellant-plaintiff was allotted 'Muking Matarial' audit A-4, for Lot No, C2 to bring it at workshop for steel lining process through agreement dated 18.10.2012. The bills were, however, prepared in the name of Respondent-Defendant No, 5, when plaintiff came to know about forged agreement executed by the said defendant, hence Defendant No, 6, became guarantor of former, therefore, a new agreement was executed on 28.11.2012. It is further averred that Defendant No, 5, through script dated 09.02.2013, on letter pad of his company clarified that agreement relating to Al-mughal Company would be transferred to plaintiff and all payments from January 2013 would be made to him. It is alleged that plaintiff came to know after execution of agreement dated 23.03.2013, that he was paid Rs,18 per cubic meter instead of Rs,230/- as settled rate which was less payment, who was also not paid on the basis of settled terms for the months of October, November and December, 2012, hence, he filed suit for recovery of the aforesaid amount. Along with the suit an application for ad-interim injunction was also moved which was objected by respondents-defendants. The learned trial Court after hearing rejected application, hence, the instant appeal.
3. Mr. Muhammad Yaqoob Khan Mughal, the learned counsel for appellant vehemently argued that as the project in question is likely to be completed in 2016, hence, Defendants No, 4 and 7 who are foreigners would not be available, hence, there will be serious apprehension to execute the solicited decree, therefore, submitted for acceptance of appeal.
4. M/s. Ch. Shabbir Ahmed, Raja Majid Khan and Haider Rasheed, Advocates for respondents vehemently argued that no any irreparable loss is likely to be caused to the appellant-plaintiff and there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the Court below and submitted for dismissal of appeal.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for parties at great length, I have perused the contents of appeal, examined the record as well as the impugned order with utmost care.
6. A contemplate perusal of record reveals that appellant-plaintiff has filed suit for recovery of Rs,21,25,522/- against respondents-defendants, which is yet at preliminary stage of filing written statement. The assertion of appellant-plaintiff that Respondents Nos. 1 to 4 and 7 be restrained from paying bills prepared in the names of Defendants No, 5 and 6 cannot be accepted, as ex- facie bills pertained to work which the aforesaid defendants have done. The basic provisions of temporary injunction as provided in order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code are reproduced as under:-- "1. Cases in which temporary injunction may be granted.-- Where in any suit it is proved by affidavit of otherwise----
(a) (a)that any property in dispute in a suit is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated by any party to the suit, or wrongfully sold in execution of a decree, or
(b) (b)that the defendant threatens, or intends, to remove or dispose of his property with a view to defraud his creditors, ' the Court may by order grant a temporary injunction to restrain such act, or make such other order for the purpose of staying and preventing the wasting damaging, alienation, sale, removal or disposition of the property as the Court thinks fit, until the disposal of the suit or until further orders.
2. Injunction to restrain repetition or continuance of breach.--
(1) In any suit for restraining the defendant from committing a breach of contract or other injury of any kind, whether compensation is claimed in the suit or not, the plaintiff may, at any time after the commencement of the suit, and either before or after judgment, apply to the Court for a temporary injunction to restrain the defendant from committing the breach of contract or injury complained of, or any breach of contract or injury of a like kind arising out of the same contract or relating to the same property or right.
(2) The Court may by order grant such injunction, on such terms, as to the duration of the injunction, keeping an account, giving security or otherwise, as the Con thinks fit.
(3) In case of disobedience, or of breach of any such terms, the Court granting an injunction may order the property of the person guilty of such disobedience or breach to the attached and may also order such person' to be detained in the civil prison for a term not exceeding six months, unless in the meantime the Court directs his release.
(4) No attachment under this rule shall remain in force for more than one year, at the end of which time, if the disobedience or breach continues, the property attached may be sold, and out of the proceeds the Court may award such compensation as it, thinks fit, and shall pay the balance, if any, to the party entitled thereto."
' From a bare reading of the aforesaid Statutory Law it becomes clear A that the provisions contained in Order XXXIX Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code are not attracted to the present case as there is no allegation that property in question is in danger of being wasted, damaged, wrongfully disposed of or sold. Rule 2 Regulates the grant of temporary injunction in suits for permanent injunction against apprehended breach of contract or other injury of any kind. The instant suit is not for perpetual injunction, however, for recovery of amount or rendition of accounts. It appears that grievance of plaintiff is against Defendants No, 1, 2, 5 and 6 who are admittedly local, hence apprehension of the learned counsel for appellant that Defendants No, 4 and 7 are foreigners, hence, decree, if any, will not be executed is devoid of any force, hence, I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Muzaffarabad.
7. As per Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code, there are three basic principles for issuance of ad-interim injunction i,e, (i). Prima facie case, (ii). Balance of convenience and (iii).
Irreparable loss. The appellant has filed suit for recovery of Rs,21,25,522/- against the defendants.
The loss measureable in terms of money is not irreparable loss, because in case of obtaining money decree the suitor can be compensated in terms of coin. An identical point came under consideration before the Quetta High Court in case titled Sarfraz Ahmed and 5 others vs. Anjuman- e-Islamia Baluchistan and another [PLD 1983 Quetta 92], referred to by the learned counsel tor Respondents No, 3, 4 and 7, Mr. Haider Rasheed. At page 97 of the report it was held as follows:-- ".... The admitted position is that the petitioner had themselves inducted the respondent Abdul Waris for a consideration of Rs,10 per day. That being so, if they succeed in the suit they can be compensated monetarily for the loss as it would be measureable in terms of money. There can be no dispute with the principles of law that the loss which is measurable in terms of money cannot be called irreparable.... "
' The same view was expressed by the Karachi High Court in case titled Taimur Usman Khawaja and others vs. Ali Muhammad Sheikh and others [2009 YLR 171], wherein at page 175 of the report it was observed as below: "It is also settled principle of law that whenever the loss, if any, is measured in terms of money, the general rule is that no injunction could be granted. In the present case, clause 5 of the agreement provides penal clause which shows that in case, if the plaintiff fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement, his advance amount should be 'forfeited and in case, if they defendant fails to fulfil his obligation, contained in the agreement, he will pay double amount to the advance amount, already received by. Him. In presence of the penal clause provided in the sale agreement, the right of the plaintiff has been secured to claim double of the advance amount which he has paid. Besides the said penal clause, the plaintiff in his suit has also claimed .Rs, 1,00,00,000/- towards damages for mental torture and disturbance, vide Para (H) of the prayer clause and Rs, 1,00,00,000/- as compensation against the Defendant No, 1 vide prayer clause (L) of the plaint which shows that the plaintiff has already claimed damages against Defendant No, 1 and the loss sustained by him has already been measured by him in terms of money, as such, in my humble opinion, will not suffer irreparable loss, in case, if the injunction is refused. The case-law relied upon by the learned counsel for Defendant No, 1, in my humble opinion, are supporting and advancing the case of the Defendant No, 1."
'After examining order of the learned trial Court, I am of the humble view that neither any illegality nor irregularity has been committed in the impugned order, hence, I have no hesitation to hold that the instant appeal is bad in law.
8. The nub of above discussion is that finding no substance in the instant appeal, the same is hereby dismissed. Needless to observe that the above findings are purely tentative which will not affect the final judgment. The costs shall follow the eventuality.