' SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDD1QUI, J.---The above appeal by the leave of this Court is directed against the order of a learned Judge in Chambers of the High Court of Balochistan, dated 1-3-1993, whereby Civil Revision No, 29/1993, filed by the appellants against the order of Additional District Judge, Quetta dated 18-1-1993, was dismissed and the interim order passed by the Additional District Judge, Quetta, directing the parties to maintain stat us quo, as it existed on the date the trial Court passed the ad interim order in the case till the disposal of the suit, was uphled.
2. Leave was granted in the case against the order of High Court to consider the following questions:-- "(1) Whether a civil suit to enforce an Award is competent? And
(2) Whether an assignment of lease without prior permission of Director, Mineral Development, as required under rule 37 of Balochistan Mining Concession Rules, 1970, is permissible.
4. The operation of the impugned order is stayed in the meanwhile."
' Respondent No,1 institued a Civil Suit No, 111 of 1992 before the Civil Judge, Quetta, against the appellants and respondents Nos.2 and 3, alleging that by virtue of the agreement and an arbitration award dated 25-4-1987, respondent No,1 is entitled to carry on the excavation of coal from the lease area bearing No,124/168. Mach, belonging to appellants' predecessor Mullick Willayat Hussain and Sons Ltd. On payment of royalty at the rate of Rs,40 per ton after deduction of any royalty or toll tax payable to Government. Alongwith the suit, the respondent No,1 also filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. Praying for grant of a temporary injunction restraining the appellants and respondents 2 and 3 from interfering with the mining operations carried on by respondent No,1, in the aforesaid area till the disposal of the suit. The trial Court initially ordered the parties to maintain status quo but finally dismissed the application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. And vacated the ad interim status quo order on 4-11-1992. On appeal filed by respondent No,1 against the order of trial Court, the Additional District Judge, Quetta, granted interim status quo order till the disposal of the suit. The Civil Revision Application preferred by the appellants against the order of Additional District Judge, Quetta, was dismissed by the learned Judge in chambers by the impunged order against which leave was granted by this Court, as aforesaid.
3. Mr. Fakharuddin G. Ebrahim, the learned counsel for the appellants contended before us that the appellants' predecessor through their letter dated 22-9-1986, had authorised Mir Gohar Khan to settle the dispute with respondent No,1 in respect of unauthorised mining by respondent No,1 in the area leased out to appellants (Lease No,124/168) by the Government. The said Mir Gohar Khan in persuance of the above authority letter of appellants, appointed Haji Abdul Razik as the sole Arbitrator, who gave an award dated 17-2-1987. Under the said award respondent No,1 was held liable to pay a sum of Rs,2,70,000 to the appellants by way of the cost of 7100 tons of coal excavated by respondent No,1 from the area leased out to appellants. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that with the giving of the award by the arbitrartor Haji Abdul Razik, the authority given by the appellants in favour of Mir Gohar Khan came to an end and as such he was not entitled to make any further reference to any arbitrator in respect of any matter on behalf of appellants concerning mining Lease No, 124/168. Mr. Fakharuddin also contended that the suit as framed is not maintainable as the respondent No,1, in effect, is seeking enforcement of an arbitration award thorugh a civil suit. The learned Advocate-General Balochistan, for respondents 2 and 3, contended that the subject-matter of the suit is exclusively within the jurisdiction of Mineral Development Authorities and in any case the mining operations carried on by respondent No,1 offended against the provisions of Balochistan Mining Concession Rules, 1970.
4. The learned counsel for respondent No,1 on the other hand contended that respondent Not are excavating coal from the above leased area since 1968 under an agreement and an arbitration award dated 25-4-1987, which provided payament of a sum of Rs,40 per ton by way of royalty to appellants' predecessor after deduction of royalty or toll tax if any payable to the Government. The learned counsel for respondent No,1 also attempted to show that the appellants have no locus standi in the matter as they were assigned the rights in the above area by the original lessee long after the agreement and arbitration award dated 25-4-1987. Replying to the contention of the appellants that respondent No,1 is seeking to enforce the arbitration award through a civil suit, the learned counsel contended that rights claimed by respondent No,1 are based on the agreement supported by the award dated 25-4-1987 which was duly acted upon by the parties. Regarding objection of the learned Advocate-General, Balochistan that the matter relates exclusively to the domain of authorities exercising powers under Balochistan Mining Concession Rules, 1970, the learned counsel for respondent No,1, contended that respondent No,1 is not claiming assignment of the lease hold rights of the appellants in the leased area and as such the dispute could be determined by the Civil Court.
' After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and the learned Advocate-General, Balochistan, we are of the view that no case for interference with the orders of High Court is made out.
5. The authority executed by the predcessors of appellants in favour of Mir Gohar Khan to settle the dispute with respondent No,1 concerning lease area bearing No, 124/168 and 152 is not disputed. The validity of the argeement dated 21-8-1988 executed between M/s. Mullick Willayat Hussain and Sons through Agha Awar (the predecessors of the appellants) and respondent No,1 settling the disputes concerning mining lease No, 152 Sharigh is also admitted before us by the learned counsel for the appellants. The appellants have, however, disputed the validity and genuineness of the agreement and arbitration award dated 25-4-1987 which provided that the respondent No,1 will be entitled to cexcavate coal from the leased area No,124/168 on payment of royalty of Rs,40 per ton to the appellants' predecessors after deduction of royalty and toll tax if any, payable to the Government. We will, therefore, examine with reference to the material before us whether respondent No,1 had succeeded "before the High Court in establishing prima facie the agreement dated 25-41987 and arbitration award of the same date. The learned counsel for the appellants stated before us that the validity of the agreement dated 21-8-1988 executed between the predecessors of the appellants and respondent No,1 is not disputed by them. The following paragraph in the agreement dated 21-8-1988 is relevant for consideration here which reads as follows:-- "As per award/decision between Mir Gohar Khan Satakzai and Khan Bahadur of April 1987 regarding mining lease Abbasia of Mach, the second party owed to the first party a sum of Rs,2,70,000 out of which the second party deposited a sum of Rs, 25,000 in the royalty account of the first party with the D.M.D. (Director Mineral Development) and paid Rs, 30,000 to the advocate in connection with the plot of land. Balance of Rs,2,15,000 is to be paid by the second party to the first party."
6. There is a clear reference in the above-quoted paragraph of the award/decision between Mir Gohar. Khan Satakzai and Khan Bahadur of April 1987 regarding mining lease Abbasia of Mach. The learned counsel for the parties agree that the mining lease of Abbasis of Mach referred in the ageement relates to the mining lease 124/168 of Mach. It is also admitted before us that apart from the arbitration award dated 25-4-1987 relied on by respondent No,1 there is no other arbitration award between the parties of that date. The learned counsel for the appellants, however, very vehemently argued before us that the reference to the arbitration award of April 1987 is a mistake in the agreement as after referring the aforesaid award the amount mentioned as payable to the appellants is stated to be Rs,2,70,000 which does not find place in the award dated 25-4-1987. The learned counsel contended that this amount of Rs,2,70,000 mentioned in the above paragraph of the agreement dated 21-8-1988 is the same amount which is referred in the first arbitration award dated 17-2-1987. The learned counsel for the appellants accordingly contended that the Courts below should have ignored the mentioning of the award of April 1987 in the agreement dated 21-8- 1988 while considering the application for grant of temporary injunction in the case. It is true that in the arbitration award dated 25-4-1987 relied by respondent No,1 and which is disputed by the allellants, there is no mention of the sum of Rs,2,70,000 but it is not possible at this stage to go into this controversy as the clause quoted above does not state that the amount of Rs,2,7Q,000 is the one which is mentioned in the award of April 1987. The Court while considering the application for grant of temporary injunction under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. Has only to consider whether the plaintiff has succeeded in making out a prima facie case on the basis of the material on record.
The prima facie case only means, that a serious question has been raised which needs to be tried in the suit at the trial. The existence of prima facie case does not me .n that the plaintiff has to show that there is every possibility of his success at the trial of the suit. If the document and the material brought on record disclose some arguable points which require serious consideration at the trial, it would satisfy the existence of a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff. If we accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants at this stage, it would mean that we will have to ignore the terms of the agreement dated 21-8-1988 and hold that the reference to the award of April 1987 is incorrect, which is not possible at this stage as no evidence in the case has been recorded and the appellants have yet to establish that the mention of the arbitration award of April 1987 was in fact as a result of the mistake on the part of both the parties. It may also be mentioned here that the award dated 17-2-1987 itself provided that if the appellants' predecessors were willing to give some portion of their mining area to the second party then the same could be effected after fixing the rate of royalty through Mir Gohar Khan. It is, therefore, to be seen at the trial of the suit whether in view of the award dated 17-2-1987, the authority given to Mir Gohar Khan by the appellants' predcessors came to be exhausted or still continued in view of the above incorporation in the award dated 17-2-1987. In reply to the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the respondent No,1 is seeking to enforce arbitration award through the proceedings of the Civil Court, the learned counsel for respondent No,1 relied on the case of Abdul Karim v. Mirza Bashir Ahmed (PLD 1974 SC 61) to contend that the respondent No,1 has not sought enforcement of the arbitration award in the case. According to learned counsel the respondent's contention is that the aforesaid award dated 25-4-1987 was acted upon by the parties and that respondent No,1 had been carrying on mining operations in the area since 1987 in pursuance of the said award. The burden of proving these allegations, no doubt, is on the appellants but this burden is to be discharged at the trial of the case. At this stage it is neither necessary nor possible to record a conclusive finding that whether or not the alleged award dated 25-4-1987 was acted upon between the parties. Suffice it to say that the conclusion of the learned High Court that respondent had succeeded to make out a prima facie case on the basis of the material on record is neither perverse nor based on conjectures and surmises. The conclusion regarding existence of a prima fade in favour of respondent No,1 by the two Courts below is duly supported by the material on record. Both the Courts; namely Additional District Judge and High Court, at Quetta, also found that the balance of convenience is in favour of the respondent No,1/plaintiff and that by reasons of withholding the grant of injunction respondent No,1/plaintiff was likely to suffer irreparable injury.
The grant of status quo order, therefore, by the Additional District Judge, Quetta, and confirmed by the High Court was on relevant consideration. The learned Advocate-General, Balochistan contended before us that the dispute raised in the suit is exclusively cognizable by the authorities exercising powers under Balochistan Mining Concession Rules, 1950 as according to learned Advocate-General, the agreement between appellants' predecessors and respondent No,1 amounted to assignment of lease which contravened the Balochistan Mining Concession Rules, 1970. The learned counsel for the respondent, however, contended that the agreement dated 25-4- 1987 did not amount to any assignment of the lease hold rights of predecessors of appellants in the mining area 124/168 in favour of the respondent No,1 and as such there was no contravention of Balochist Mining Concession Rules, 1970, so as to attract the provisions of the said Rules. All these questions have to be decided in the light of the evidence, which may be produced by the parties at the trial. No case for interference with the judgment of High Court is made out. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, we will make no order as to costs.