Main Case C.M.No,1-C/2015 C. M.No,88-C/2017 MAMOON RASHID SHEIKH, J.---The petitioners being defendants Nos,1 and 2, in the suit for declaration and perpetual injunction, filed by respondents Nos,1 to 7, against the petitioners and respondents Nos,8 and 9, have brought the instant petition challenging the order in appeal, dated 03.03.2015, passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Jhelum, confirming the temporary injunction granted to respondents Nos,1 to 7, by the learned trial Court, through the order, dated 12.02.2014.
2. At the outset, the attention of the learned counsel for the parties has been drawn to the provisions of Rule (2B) of Order XXXIX of the C.P.C. (as amended by the Lahore High Court), which read as under:- "(2B) The order of injunction made under rules 1 or 2 after hearing the parties or after notice to the defendant shall cease to have effect on the expiration of one year unless extended by the Court after hearing the parties again and for reasons to be recorded for such extension. Provided that report of such extension shall be submitted to the High Court: Provided also that the case shall be disposed expeditiously."
3. Admittedly upon respondents Nos,1 to 7's application, under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2 of the C.P.C., a temporary injunction was granted to them, after hearing the parties, on 12.02.2014. The petitioners filed their appeal against the said order on 18.02.2014. The petitioners' appeal kept on pending for more than a year and was finally decided through the order dated 03.03.2015, which is under challenge in the instant petition.
4. As will be clear, a period of more than one year had lapsed between the passing of the temporary injunction, in favour of respondents Nos,1 to 7, by the learned trial Court and the passing of the impugned decision by the learned appellate Court. In other words, the temporary injunction ceased to have effect upon expiration of the period of one year envisaged by Rule 2B, ibid. As such, at the time of the decision by the appellate Court there was no temporary injunction in the field in favour of respondents Nos,1 to 7. The petitioners' appeal in fact had become infructuous. However, this point appears to have escaped the notice of the appellate Court as well as the parties.
5. There is nothing on the record to show that respondents No,1 to 7 had moved an application in terms of Rule 2B, ibid., for extension of the order of temporary injunction granted in their favour nor for that matter the order was extended nor is there any report to that effect before this Court.
Similarly there is nothing on the record to show that the said order was suspended by the learned appellate Court in the petitioners' appeal.
6. It may be further noted that the instant petition was filed after the lapse of the said period of one year, that is to say, when there was no temporary injunction existing in favour of respondents Nos,1 to 7.
7. The learned counsel for the parties despite opportunity being provided have been unable to establish otherwise.
8. Under the circumstances, on the basis of the above facts and the provisions of Rule 2B, ibid., without ring into the merits of the case it is observed that since by operation of law there is no temporary injunction in the field the instant petition was infructuous nay incompetent at the time of filing. I am fortified in my view on the basis of the judgments reported as "Raja Talat Mahmood v.
Ismat Ehtishamul Haq" (1999 SCMR 2215), "District Collector, Bannu and 4 others v. Muhammad Subhan and 3 others" (2008 CLC 1568) and "Xen PESCO (WAPDA) Mansehra through Chairman, PESCO and 4 others v. Gas Masters CNG Filling Station, Mansehra through Khalid Latif and others"
9. In Raja Talat Mahmood's case, supra, it has been held that upon confirmation an interim injunction stands expired after, "six months" (in this case one year). In Xen PESCO (WAPDA)
Mansehra's case, supra, it has been observed that the law maker has introduced rule 2B, ibid., so as to suppress the mischief of delay in disposal of those cases in which the plaintiff seeks and is granted interim relief. The outer limit of one year has been fixed to obviate such practice. The amendment was introduced to deny the opportunity to the beneficiary of the temporary injunction to misuse it by deliberately delaying the adjudication of the suit.
10. It may, however, be observed that trial Courts as well as appellate Courts below normally do not take this provision of law into consideration whilst passing orders on applications for grant of temporary injunction and/or hearing appeals in respect thereof, whereas under the law they are required to do so, which is regrettable.
11. Under the circumstances, the petition is dismissed being incompetent with the observation that respondents Nos,1 to 7, if so advised, may move an application under the provisions of Rule 2B, ibid., before the learned trial Court for extension and/or re-issuance of a temporary injunction in their favour.
12. It is further observed that as and when such an application is moved the learned trial Court shall decide it expeditiously, strictly in accordance with the law and after hearing the parties.
13. Needless to add that the report of any such extention shall be submitted to the High Court and respondents Nos,1 to 7's suit shall be decided expeditiously.
There is no order as to costs.