' Petitioner being a Private Limited Company, providing' engineering services, instituted a suit for permanent injunction through Mr. D.H. Norris, who was allegedly director of the Company and was fully authorized, by contending that petitioner/plaintiff was awarded a construction contract for extension work at the Television Centre, Abbott Road, Lahore in June, , 1975. Allegedly, in October/November, 1977, it was agreed inter the petitioner and Respondent No, 2 that a sum of Rs,800,000/- would be advanced to petitioner which would be utilized by the petitioner for extension work and same would be recovered from the running bills of the petitioner after a grace period of three months and petitioner was asked to arrange an Insurance Bond in the sum of Rs,800,000/-, which the petitioner executed on 01.12.1977 in favor of Respondent No, 2 and it was clearly mentioned in the said bond that it was being issued in consideration of an advance of Rs,800,000/-, to be made to the petitioner/plaintiff; but after securing the Bond for Rs,800,000/-, the Respondent No, 2 only advanced a sum of Rs,338,525/- vide Cheque No, 06072728 dated 24.12:1977 and Respondent No, 2 later on tried to encash the Bond in violation of terms and conditions; hence, the suit.
' The suit was contested by the Respondent No, 2 while submitting written statement and raised objections with regards to lack of cause of action, form of suit and maintainability of the suit was called in question and prayed for dismissal of the suit.
' The learned trial Court summed up the divergence in' pleadings into issues. Both the parties adduced their respective evidence in pro and contra.
' After hearing arguments, the learned trial Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 08.12.2000 dismissed suit of the petitioner.
' Feeling aggrieved of the said judgment and decree, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was subsequently dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 22.04.2006 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Lahore.
2. Advancing arguments, it has been stated that both the learned Courts below have erred in holding that the suit has not been instituted by an authorized person, because no objection has been raised by rival party. Adds that both the learned Courts have failed to appreciate law on the subject in a proper way and misapplied and misinterpreted the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1872 by maintaining that efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner other than injunction.
Therefore, the impugned judgments and decrees being not sustainable in the eye of law may be set aside while allowing the civil revision in hand and suit of the petitioner may be decreed. Relies on. The Municipal Board, Mathura v. Dr. Radha Ballabh Pathak A.I.R. (936) 1949 Allahabad 301, Municipal Committee, Montgomery v. Master Sant Singh AIR. 1940 Lahore 377, Aziz Ullah Khan and others v. Gul Muhammad Khan 2000 SCM R 1647, Messrs National Construction Ltd. v. Aiwan-e-Iqbal Authority PLD 1994 Supreme Court 311 and Heavy Mechanical Complex (Pvt.) Ltd., Taxila v. Attock Industrial Products Ltd. Rawalpindi PLD 2003 Supreme Court 295.
3. On the contrary, Respondent No, 1 was proceeded against ex parte. However, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No 2 while favoring the impugned judgments and decrees has prayed for dismissal of the civil revision in hand. Relies on PICIC Commercial Bank Limited v.
Spectrum Fisheries Limited 2006 CLD 440-Karachi, Khan Iftikhar Hussain Khan of Mamdot (Represented by 6 Heirs) u. Messrs Ghulam Nabi Corporation Ltd. Lahore PLD 1971 Supreme Court 550, Qamran Construction (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Saleemullah and 2 others 2008 CLD 239-Karachi, Haral Textiles Limited v. Banque Indosuez Belgium. S.A. And others 1999 SCM R 591, Messrs National Construction Ltd. v. Aiwan-e-labal Authority PLD 1994 Supreme Court 311, Pakistan Petroleum Limited v. BBJ Pipe Industries (Pvt.) Limited and another 2005 CLD 1710-Lahore and Sh. Fateh Muhammad v.
Muhammad Adil and others PLD 2007 Supreme Court 460.
4. Heard.
5. Admittedly, the resolution allegedly passed in favor of persons, who instituted the plaint and amended plaint have not been placed on record nor tendered in evidence, which was mandatory to be placed on record and where there is any defect in the institution of plaint i,e, same having been instituted unauthorized and incompetently, the said defence is incurable. It was held in Khan Iftikhar Hussain Khan of Mamdot (Represented by 6 Heirs) v. Messrs Ghulam Nabi Corporation Ltd.
Lahore PLD 1971 Supreme Court 550 that, 'Suit on behalf of Company by a person (Director In- charge of Company)--Not competent unless he is so authorized by a resolution passed by Company's Board of Directors--Meeting of Directors not duly convened unless due notice of it given to all Director.' In view of above, the findings of learned Courts below in this regard do not call for any interference by this Court, as some have been rendered by construing law on the subject in a proper way.
'In addition to above, Bank guarantee is an independent contract between Bank and a party in whose favor the guarantee is issued and encashment of irrevocable guarantee cannot be restrained by way of grant of temporary injunction on the ground that there is a dispute between the parties to the main Contract/agreement, as already observed by this Court in Pakistan Petroleum Limited u. BBJ Pipe Industries (Pvt.) Limited and another 2005 CLD 1710-Lahore.
6. In revisional jurisdiction, the concurrent findings of the learned Courts below on facts cannot be interfered with by this Court at revisional stage, which has limited scope and the Court has only to see whether any material illegality, irregularity or wrong exercise of jurisdiction has been committed by learned Courts below, but in the present case, there is no occasion of such like nature warranting interference by this Court in the impugned judgments and decrees, because it has rightly been observed by learned Courts below that the suit was not maintainable in its present form and no decree for grant of permanent injunction, in view of above discussion, can be granted.
7. The learned Courts below have rightly reached the conclusion after appraising and evaluating the evidence, oral as well as documentary, in a proper way, concurrently, which cannot be interfered with. In this regard guideline can be sought from Cantonment Board through Executive Officer, Cantt. Board Rawalpindi v. Ikhlaq Ahmed and others 2014 SCM R 161, wherein it has invariably been held that: ' Revisional jurisdiction of High Court could not be invoked, against conclusions of law or fact, which did not, in any way, affect jurisdiction of the Court--High Court could not have investigated into facts or exercised its jurisdiction on the basis of facts or grounds, 'which were already proved by parties by leading evidence----High Court was justified in, not interfering in concurrent findings of facts which were based on material brought on record and proper appredation of evidence.
' When the impugned judgments and decrees are result of appreciation of evidence and law on the subject in a true perspective and no misreading and non-reading of evidence has been committed by learned Courts below and not perverse or arbitrary in nature, same cannot be interfered in revisional jurisdiction. Reliance is placed on Muhammad Idrees and others v.
Muhammad Peruaiz and others 2010 SCM R 5.
8. The case law relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, with utmost respect, has no relevance to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand; therefore, same does not render any help or assistance to the petitioner's cause.
9. As a sequel of above discussion, while placing reliance on the judgments supra, the instant civil revision being devoid of any force and substance stands dismissed.
10. No order as to costs.