MUHAMMAD NAEEM ANWAR, J.This single order in this appeal shall also decide FAO No.68-P/2020 in view of common legal question with respect to existence of injunction granted in favour of respondent vide impugned order dated 12.02.2020. Both the appeals are directed against the order passed by the learned Civil Judge XXIII, Peshawar, whereby the applications for grant of temporary injunction filed by the respondent in Civil Suits Nos.234/1 and 235/1 of 2019 were allowed and the ad-interim injunction already granted was confirmed for statutory period of six months.
2. Undeniably, on acceptance of applications, the injunction so granted remains in field for the period of six months in accordance with the provisions of Order XXXIX, Rules 2-B, which period has already been expired. The relevant provisions of Order XXXIX, Rule 2-B, for convenience, is reproduced as under: - "Order XXXIX R.2-B. The order of injunction made under rule 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 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.)."
3. ##TS#The above quoted provision was added by the Civil Laws (Reforms) Act XIV of 1994, whereunder the statutory life of the order passed after hearing both the parties is six months and after expiry of six months the order automatically expires or remains no more in field.##TE# The phrase "cease to have effect" denotes come to an end, no longer in existence, discontinue, elapse, end, expire, finish, halt, lapse, leave off, let up, pass, quit, stop, terminate, wind up. In Raja Talat Mehmood v. Ismat Ehtishamul Haq (1999 SCMR 2215), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "O.XXXIX, R. 2-B---Interim injunction --- Expiry--- Interim injunction stands expired after six months under O.XXXIX, R.2-B, C.P.C"
4. This court in case titled "Muhammad Zahir v. Ahmad Yar and 3 others" (2005 YLR 210) has followed the same view in by holding that "the grievance of the petitioner that while remanding the case back to the learned trial Court status quo order should have been maintained has no force.
The perusal of the judgment/order passed by the learned trial Court shows that the respondents/defendants were restrained to construct new PSO out-let for a period of 6 months which period has since expired."
5. In view of the self-explanatory, unambiguous, explicit, lucid and unequivocal provision of law which is open only to one interpretation, no injunctive order is in existence against the appellants at the moment. When so, these appeals have become infructuous, thus, stand dismissed.