' This Revision Application under section 115, C.P.C. Is directed against the order dated 24-9-1986, passed by the learned VIIth Senior Civil Judge, (South) Karachi, wherein, on the application of respondent No, 1 under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C., he ordered issuance of notice and further directed that meanwhile, status quo be maintained by defendants Nos.3 and 4.
2. The brief facts leading to this litigation are that the respondent No,1 as well as applicants are employees of the Railways Board working as teachers in Pakistan Railway School. By order dated 26-2-1980, the Divisional Superintendent Pakistan Railways, Karachi, granted selection grade to certain teachers including respondent No,1, against which applicants filed representation. Under instructions of the G.M. (P) Lahore, the Divisional Superintendent of Pakistan Railways Karachi, withdrew his order dated 26-6-1986, and instead passed another order granting selection grade viz. R.S.P. 16 to certain teachers including the present applicants. The respondent No,1, therefore, filed the suit in the Civil Court seeking following reliefs:
(i) The plaintiff therefore prays that the seniority of the plaintiff as well as defendants 5, 6 and 7 be maintained according to the seniority list dated 7-12-1985 and not otherwise.
(ii) To declare the action letter dated 26-6-1986 of the defendant No,3, valid, proper, legal, effective and final.
(iii) To declare the action letter dated 18-9-1986 mala fide, null and void ability, without jurisdiction and illegal, afterthought and permanent injunction restraining the defendants Nos. 3 and 4 not to take any action on the alleged letter dated 18-9-1986 vide No,847- E/SEN/Teachers/P-2 till the decision of the case regarding the defendants 5, 6 and 7.
(iv) Any other relief under the circumstances of the case.
(v) Costs."
3. During the pendency of the suit the respondent No 1 moved an application under Order 39, Rule 1, C.P.C., on which the impugned order was passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge.
4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the applicants appears to be,- that the learned Civil Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and as such the impugned order would be deemed to have been passed without jurisdiction and as such it is a void order and therefore this Court can set aside the order either in exercise of its jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C., or in alternative in exercise of its power under Article 203 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic or Pakistan. The learned counsel for respondent No,1, however, contended that the impugned order cannc: he said to be an order which decides any matter and as such no revision application can lie under section 115, C.P.C. It is further contended by the learned counsel for respondent No, 1 that the case did not involve dispute over seniority but it was a dispute with regard to promotion to Grade'
16 and jurisdiction of Service Tribunal being ousted under section 4 (1), proviso (b) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, the Civil Court does have power to entertain this suit. These questions would be for the learned trial Court to decide, therefore, I need not discuss them as it may prejudice the case of some party before the trial Court.
5. The main question which requires decision by this Court is whether the revision application lies against the impugned order. The learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the case of Arts Council of Pakistan v. Riazuddin Pirzada (PLD 1969 Kar. 349). In this case also, ad interim injunction was issued by the learned Civil Judge and the aggrieved party filed revision in this Court. It was observed by the learned Judge, "that mere fact that the person aggrieved by grant of temporary injunction could move Court for its discharge under Rule 4 of Order 39 was no ground for refusing to entertain revision under section 115 if he can show that impugned order was utterly arbitrary." It was further held "that the plain reading of section 115, C.P.C. Suggests that a revision is barred only when there is a right of appeal to the High Court, and not when the applicant has a right of appeal in a subordinate Court".
6. The learned counsel for respondent No, 1 has however relied upon the case of Bashir Ahmed Khan v. Qaiser Ali Khan and 2 others (PLD 1973 SC 507). It was held by their Lordships therein "that section 115, C.P.C., would be attracted if a Court subordinate to the High Court has given a decision in respect of any state of facts after judicially considering the same. The decision need not necessarily dispose of the whole matter or suit pending before the subordinate Court". In this case impugned decision was the order of the subordinate Court dismissing the application for amendment of plaint.
7. It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent No,1 that the impugned order cannot be considered to be a decision and therefore, no revision lies. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that the impugned order is a decision as this order was passed by the learned Civil Judge after applying his mind judicially to the arguments and the contentions of the respondent No, 1/plaintiff and within a week of passing of this order the respondent No,1/plaintiff had moved the application for taking action against defendants 3 and 4 for allegedly committing breach of this order. It is contended that such an order cannot but be considered to be case decided within the meaning of section 115, C.P.C.
8. The learned counsel for respondent No, 1 has not been able to produce any case-law to show that ad interim order was not a case decided. He contended that this was an order passed under section 151 C.P.C. But this order appears to have been passed under Rule 1 of Order 39, C.P.C.
Whereby, the Court is empowered" to grant by order a temporary injunction to restrain such act, or make such other order for the purpose of staying and preventing the wasting, damaging, alienation, sale, removal or disposition of the property as the Court thinks fit, until the disposal of the suit or until further orders".
9. There is no specific mention of any ad interim injunction in this -rule nor is the word ad interim defined in the Civil Procedure Code. In the Black's Dictionary word ad interim is defined to mean 'in the meantime.' Thus, an a interim order will be an order which will remain in force until further orders. Therefore, such an order would be covered by the last clause of Rule 1 (underlined by me).
For all the purposes, this would be an order under Rule 1 of Order 39, C.P.C. Which provisionally decides the case by allowing the maintenance of the status quo for indefinite period until further orders. Therefore, in my opinion, it is a case decided as it allows a state of things to continue indefinitely till further order. This order has been passed by the learned Civil Judge apparently after applying his mind to the contentions and averment: of the respondent No,1 made in the suit as well as affidavit in support of this, application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C., and as such it is a judicial order.
10. It is settled law that the Court while granting a temporary injunction to take into consideration the following factors viz. (a) that the prima facie case is made out by the applicant, (b) that irreparable damage or injury would accrue to the applicant if injunction is not granted and (c) that inconvenience which undergo from withholding the injunction, be comparatively greater than which is likely to arise from granting it or in other words the balance of inconvenience would be in favour of the applicant. It is contended that the dispute between the parties is over the grant of selection grade, which would result in increased salary to the party who is considered eligible for selection grade, therefore, damage, if any, can be measured in terms of money, and the respondent No, 1, if he ultimately succeeds to establish his right of being given selection grade, would be able to get arrears of salary in the selection grade from the date right to get the said grade accrued to him and would therefore, not suffer irreparable loss or for that reason any inconvenience. It is further contended, That the learned Civil Judge has passed the impugned order without taking into consideration the provisions of Rule 3 of Order 39 which bars the issuance of temporary injunction against the Government or Government Servants or any statutory authority, Board or Corporation set up or established by the Government without notice. I have already held ad interim injunction is a temporary injunction under Order 39, Rule 1, C.P.C. Is in fact. a decision in respect of a fact viz. The right of the respondent to continue in selection grade till further order and it has been passed after judicially considering the issue. For the aforesaid reasons I am in respectful agreement with the view expressed in the case of Arts Council of Pakistan v. Riazuddin Pirzada (PLD 1969 Karachi 349) and I am of the opinion that the revision application does lie against such an order, specially in the circumstances of this case where impugned order appears to have been passed by the learned Civil Judge arbitrarily and without taking into consideration Rule 3 of Order 39 and where some of the defendants in the suit are facing threat of prosecution for alleged breach of the said order passed by the learned Civil Judge.
11. In my opinion the impugned order has been passed by the learned Civil Judge, arbitrarily, with material irregularity and cannot be sustained. It is therefore, set aside and the learned Civil Judge is directed to decide injunction application after hearing the parties and taking into consideration all the contentions raised by them.
12. The revision application was allowed by the short order dated 18-5-1987. The above are the reasons in support of the said order. 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.