' MUHAMMAD YOUNIS THAHEEM, J.---The instant C.M has been moved by the applicant/petitioner, seeks suspension of operation of the impugned judgment/order dated 29.06.2016 of the learned appellate Court, till disposal of main C.R referred above.
2. As respondents Nos.1 and 2 despite of service are not in attendance, therefore are placed ex- parte. Learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner and A.A.G for respondents Nos.3 and 4 are allowed to argue the, case.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that basically the suit filed by the respondents Nos.1 and 2 is not maintainable and application for grant of temporary injunction was dismissed by the learned trial Court, while the learned appellate Court failed to appreciate the law on the subject `as well as the facts on record in its true perspective and had set aside the order of learned trial Court; he further contended that the Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa owned newly constructed building Municipal office Gagra which is on the main road where other municipal facilities like Fire- Brigade House, Police Station, National Bank, B.H.U, offices of Additional Deputy Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner and Higher Secondary School are situated around it which is readily available for shifting with full-fledged facilities but the respondents Nos.1 and 2 due to their mala fide have stuck themselves in a rented building for which the government is paying near about Rs,50,000/- per month as rent and they are creating hindrances for the shifting of office thereto without plausible reason, which not only causing huge financial loss to the government exchequer but is also against the public interest. Learned counsel referred the judgment of this Court dated 11.02.2010 in W.P. No,2147-P/2006 titled as "Shamshad Ali Shah and others v. Govt of K. P. K and others" vide which similar kind of relief was not granted and petition was withdrawn by the then Naib-Nazim about the same Municipal Office, Gagra, District Buner, when its construction was under process, so now present respondents Nos.1 and 2 are estopped to seek same kind of relief.
4. Learned A.A.G supported the stance of applicant/petitioner and raised no objection on suspension of operation of impugned order/judgment.
5. Arguments heard and record perused.
6. Admittedly, it is settled law that there are three essential ingredients i,e, prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss for the grant of temporary injunction which must co- exist in favour of the plaintiff/applicant.
7. Perusal of record transpires that impugned Municipal Office Gagra is present in constructed form since long on main road while Municipal Office at Sawarri has been taken on rent and the Government is paying rent near about Rs,50,000/- per month for that hired Municipal Office.
8, It is admitted position that Municipal Office Gagra at Kalpani is situated on the main road where Fire-Brigade House is already working besides that, Government Higher Secondary School, National Bank of Pakistan, B.H.U, offices of Additional Deputy Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner are also situated around the same constructed Municipal Office, Gagra at Kalpani, on that said main road, so learned appellate Court failed to appreciate the above facts with regard to prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss to either party.
9. The present petitioner is paying Rs,50,000/- for the hired building where temporary Municipal Office is working despite the fact that Government owned, well facilitated building, which was constructed with the purpose to establish Municipal Office, Gagra at Kalpani, so it would be a great financial loss as its own building is laying vacant while on the other hand the Government is paying rent for hired building.
10. As per provision of Section 56-(d) of Specific Relief Act, 1877, is concerned, no injunction can be issued to hamper the public work being performed by the public department as it amounts restraining of smooth running of government business but learned appellate Court remained oblivion to it and to the above referred law. In this respect reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case titled "Shahzada Muhammad Umar Bain v. Sultan Mehmood Khan and others" (PLD 1970 SC 139).
11. The respondents Nos.1 and 2 has yet to prove their case including locus standi and cause of action while the same case would approximately be concluded in years to come, so learned appellate Court has exercised its discretion quite contrary to the principles of equity, justice and law.
' In view of above discussion, the instant C.M is allowed and operation of the impugned order/judgment of learned appellate court dated 29.06.2016 shall remain suspended till disposal of main C.R. Office is directed to fix the main C.R. On its own turn.