1. ' ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.-This is a petition for leave from the order of a Division Bench of Sind High Court, dated 7-6-1984 by which petitioner's appeal was dismissed. That appeal was directed against an order of a learned Single Judge of the said High Court dismissing petitioner's application for temporary injunction to restrain the respondents from encashing the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner in Suit No, 699 of 1983 filed on the original side of the High Court which was later on dismissed on 24-4-1984 as withdrawn, with permission granted to the petitioner to file a fresh suit, which was indeed filed, being Suit No, 320 of 1984 in the same High Court. It is in that Suit that the aforesaid application for grant of temporary injunction was filed which has led to the present petition.
2. We have heard learned counsel in support of the petition as well as learned Additional Advocate- General who appeared for the caveator. We find that the question regarding the entitlement to the encashment of the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner in Suit No, 699 of 1983 was decided by the High Court in that suit and also by this Court in C. P. S. L. A. No, K-225 of 1984 between the same parties which was dismissed by the judgment dated 13th May, 1984. It was primarily on the basis of these decisions that petitioner's request for temporary injunction was refused b the learned Single Judge in the subsequent Suit No, 320 of 1984 and the learned Judges of, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed petitioner's appeal. We find that no exception can be taken with the impugn orders passed by the High Court refusing to grant petitioner's request for the issuance of the temporary injunction prayed for.
3. ' While refusing to grant the interim relief by way of temporary injunction as prayed, the High Court has, however, decided the claim of the respondent in respect of the amount of the bank guarantee, and directed that out of the amount of the bank guarantee Rs, 20,00,000, sum of Rs, 16,05,000 may be withdrawn by the respondent, and the balance sum of Rs, 3.95,000 may be invested in the K has Deposit Certificates, subject to such further orders as may be passed by the Court finally in this regard.
4. ' We are not able to understand why sum of Rs, 3,95,000 out of the bank guarantee of Rs, 20,00,000 has been ordered to be kept in Court without any reason whatsoever. Learned Additional Advocate is not able to point out any claim of the respondent to this amount either in the earlier Suit No, 699 of 1983 or Suit No, 320 of 1984. The High Court also took into consideration all the claims of the respondent in respect of the amount of the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioners in Suit No, 669 of 1983, and after having satisfied these claims, held that there yet remains a balance of Rs, 3,95,000 which however has been directed to be invested in Khas Deposit Certificates, subject to any further orders that may be passed by the Court finally in this regard in Suit No, 320 of 1984.
5. ' Since no claim is shown to have been made by the respondent in respect of the aforesaid amount, either wholly, or in part, in any of the two suits, we find no justification for a direction having been issued by the High Court for withholding the amount from the petitioner. We, therefore, convert this petition into an appeal and set aside that part of the order of the High Court by which it has been directed that sum of Rs, 3,95,000 be invested in Khas Deposit Certificates and direct that aforesaid amount shall be paid to the petitioner.
6. ' With this modification in the impugned orders of the High Court, the appeal is, otherwise, dismissed with no order as to costs, and the interim order of this Court, dated 7-6-1984 is vacated.
7. ' We may, however, clarify that this order is not meant to prejudice the respective rights and claims of the parties in any manner.
8. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner requests that a direction be issued to the High Court for the early disposal of the Suit No, 320 of 1984 for the reason that petitioner has suffered heavy financial losses and may be able to get whatever relief that is lawfully due to him at an early date. This request should normally be made to the High Court, and we feel confident that if made, it will receive due consideration.