' This revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 2nd June, 1983 passed in C.M.A.
No, 129/83 whereby the learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Karachi dismissed the said appeal filed by the petitioner and thus the order of dismissal of application under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. Made by the IV Senior Civil Judge, Karachi, in Suit No,1746/83 was maintained.
' The facts are stated by the learned Courts below in their orders and it is not necessary to repeat the same here. Suffice would it be to state that the plaintiff (the petitioner) claims to be a shopkeeper and supplier for sale of animals through the Slaughter House at Cattle Colony Landhi, Karachi. He filed Civil Suit No,1746/83 for declaration and permanent injunction alongwith which he also applied for injunction under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2, C.P.0 for restraining the respondents from seizing blood of the slaughtered animals.
' It was the case of the plaintiff that the officers of the respondents want to seize blood of the animals slaughtered in the aforementiond Slaughter House illegally. The case of the respondents on the other hand is that blood of a slaughtered animal falls in the category of "refuse" as defined under section 2 of the Sind Local Government Ordinance, 1979 and by virtue of collection of refuse, it becomes the absolute property of the Corporation who therefore is authorised to dispose of the same and that the right to collect refuse by the Corporation has been disposed of by auction to a contractor, under a valid agreement.
2. Both the Courts have held that prima facie waste blood of slaughtered animals is included in "refuse" as defined in the Ordinance of 1979 and that since the plaintiff/petitioner failed to make out a prima facie case to take away waste blood, no injunction could be granted.
' The learned lower Courts placed reliance on the case reported as Meat and Cattle Merchant Association v. K.M.C. P L 0 1976 Kar.373 in which it was observed on the facts of that case that blood of animals slaughtered in the slaughter-house of the Corporation was collected by the Corporation as refuse. With the observation that it was not shown that the petitioners would suffer any irreparable injury or more inconvenience if status quo was not allowed to continue, the prayer for injunction was refused and the petition was dismissed.
3. In view of the concurrent findings of the two Courts, that no prima facie case has been made out by the plaintiff/petitioner and further finding that the petitioner has not shown that he would suffer any irreparable injury or that the balance of convenience is in his favour, 1 find that no case has been made out calling for interference by this Court in exercise of its limited jurisdiction within the meaning of section 115, C.P.C.
' The revision petition is accordingly dismissed summarily.
' It is clarified that any observation made by this Court or the Courts below while disposing of the interlocutory application shall not in any manner prejudice the trial of the suit on merits.