ABDUL HAMEED BALOCH, J.---This Revision Petition is directed again st the order dated 03.03.2018 and 26.10.2018, passed by the learned Civil Judge Kuchlak ("trial court ") and the learned Additional District Judge, Kuchlak ("the appellate court") respectively , whereby the application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. in the "Suit for Declaration, Partition and permanent Injunction" filed by the respondent No.1/plaintif f for grant of interim injunction was allowed, and the parties were directed to maintain status-quo and not to create third party interest in any manner in respect of the suit properties till final disposal of the suit. The petitioner being aggrieved of the interim order filed an appeal, which was dismissed by the appellate court.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. The record reveals that the trial vide order dated 13.03.2018 accepted the application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C.P C. and ordered to maintain status-quo, against which the petitioner filed an appeal, which was dismissed vide order dated 27.10.2018. Under Order XXXIX, Rule 2-B of the Civil Procedure Code added by the law (Reform Act, 1994) whereby the temporary injunction shall cease to have effect on expiry of six months. It would be relevant to reproduce the Order XXXIX, Rule 2-B of the C.P .C. as under: 2-B. 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 six months unless extended by the Cour t after hearing the parties again and for reasons to be record for such extension.
Provided that report of such extension shall be submitted to the High Court.
3. The object of Rule 2-B of Order XXXIX, C.P.C. is to expedite the disposal of these cases in which temporary injunction was granted. The object of limit of six months to put embargo on the power of court granting temporary injunction for indefinite period. The purpo se of the above amendment is to discourage the misuse of the interim order for protracting the litigation. After the, enactment of rule (2-B) the court while extending the interim injunction shall have to record the reasons coupled with report of the said extension to the High Court. Reliance is placed on the case of XEN PESCO (WAPDA) v. Gas Masers CNG Filling Station PLD 2005 Peshawar 132, whereby it has been observed as under:
6. The law maker has introduced (rule 2-B) with the object to suppress the mischief of delay in the disposal of those cases in which temporary injunctions are granted. The outer limits of six months, i.e., the terminus provided for the initial order of injunction is with the object to place an embargo on the powers of the Courts granting temporary injunction in pending cases for indefinite period so to ensure the speedy disposal of such cases, Additionally , the amendments introduced were with the view that the beneficiary of it may not misu se the same by protracting the litigation a fact judicially noticed by the Courts in the past, The proviso to rule (2=B) has futher laid emphasis that copy of the order extending temporary injunction shall be submitted to the High Court which is a further check on the discretionary powers of the subordinate Courts. Again the aim and object behind it is that District Courts shall decide those cases in which temporary injunctions are granted as quickly as possible. After the enactment of rule (2-B) the extension of temporary injunction is no more a matter of routine and it cannot be done in the old fashion.
The Court while extending the same shall have to record sound reasons and copy of the same is to be essentially sent to the High Court for information. The absolute discretion earlier vested in the said Courts has thus been taken away .
We have noticed with concern that ordinarily copies of such orders are not sent to the High Court which amounts to a clear violation of the mandatory provision of rule (2-B), C. P. C. Non-compliance therewith would render such order legally defective and susceptible to interference in appellate or revisional jurisdiction.
All the subordinate Courts, therefore, are required to send copy of the order extending the temporary injunction each time to the High Court without fail.
8. The word "extension" has been issued by the law maker in Rule (2-B) with an definite object to which no different meaning widening its scope can be given because such a construction would certainly defeat the very purpose for the achievement of which the said rule was enacted. The manifest intention behind the same is that the granting temporary injunction for all indefinite period as was done in the past has been done away and by now it is to be regulated by periodical extension so that tendency of granting temporary injun ction in a routine' manner for unlimited period without deciding the main case is to beg curbed/suppressed. The change has introduced a new system of dispensation of quick justice with a proper discipline to be maintained by the subordinate Courts while granting and extending, temporary injunction.
10. Before parting with the Judgment the District Courts are emphatically directed to intimate/send copy of the order extending temporary injunction to the High Court strictly complying with the proviso to Rule (2.B) of Order XXX1X, It is also emphasized that while granting extension in the Injunction order under the above rule the Court shall record sound reasons for the same and shall also consider its own contribution in the delay of disposal of the main case as well as of the patties particularly of the beneficiary of the order , In case the beneficiary of the order is found indulging in delaying tactics by protracting the trial in the main case that can be considered as a disentitling factor for extension of the temporary injunction order . Whenever the Court for valid reason extends the initial order of injunction then the main case shall be given priority for disposal and before the expiry of the extended period the Court shall decide the main case in all circumstances.
In view of above discussion, the interim/status-quo order dated 03.03.2018 passed by the trial court and upheld by the appellate court ; vide order dated 26.10.2018 are no more in field as the same has spent out its statutory life.
The earlier interim order , passed by this court is hereby recalled. Consequently , the petition is disposed of accordingly . revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.