1. ' This Miscellaneous Appeal calls in questions an order dated 23rd September, 1996 refusing temporary injunction to the appellant in First Class Suit No,201/1996 passed by the learned 4th Senior Civil Judge, Hyderabad. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff against the respondents and has inter alia claimed the following relief: "(a) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct defendant Nos. 5, 6 and 7 to execute the sale- deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of Survey Nos.315, 316, 317 measuring area 10-02 acres, situated in Deh Mirzapur Taluka, Hyderabad, and in case of failure the Nazir of the Court may be directed to execute sale-deed before the Sub-Registrar, Hyderabad on behalf of the defendants.
(b) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 to execute sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of Survey No,133, Deh Jamshoro, Taluka Hyderabad, measuring 5-3 acres and in case of failure the Nazir of the Court may be ordered to execute sale-deed on behalf of the defendants in favour of plaintiff.
(c) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to cancel the sale-deed registered No,379 dated 30-1-1996 executed by the defendants Nos.2 and 3 in favour of the defendant No,4.
(d) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to cancel the sale-deed Registered No,1966 dated 15-5-1995 executed by the defendants Nos. 5, 6 and 7 in favour of the defendant No,2.
(e) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the defendant No,8 to cancel the entry of mutation of Survey No,133, Deh Jamshoro, Taluka Hyderabad and Survey Nos.315, 317, Deh Mirzapur Taluka, Hyderabad and make fresh entry in the name of the plaintiff.
2. (0 This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to declare that the plaintiff is owner of Survey No,133, Deh Jamshoro and Survey Nos.315, 316 and 317, Deh Mirzapur, Hyderabad in view of Sale Agreement dated 18-1-1994.
(g) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to declare that the sale-deed Nos.1966 dated 15-5-1995 and 379 dated 30-1-1996 are false, forged, being fraudulent - executed as null and void.
(h) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to declare and cancel the partnership deed, dated 18-4- 1995 as ineffective.
(i) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the defendant No,1 to return the amount Rs,15 millions or deposit in the Court received by the defendant No,1 for the utilization over the bye-pass scheme.
(j) To direct the defendant No,1 to produce the entire record of accounts in the name of I.R.S. Builders (Bye-Pass) Scheme including cash books, payment receipts, 'allotment booking etc. And pay the due share, profits to the plaintiff without fall.
(k) To declare that all acts done on the basis of sale-deed dated 15-5-1995 and 30-1-1996 partnership deed dated 18-4-1995 done by the defendants Nos. 1 to 4 are ineffective, void, ab initio, fraudulent.
(1) To grant permanent injunction against the defendants Nos.1, 2, 4 and 8 restraining them from transferring, selling, booking, taking advances gift, - mortgaging, loan from Government or Corporation, constructing anything over the suit land, making any entry or mutation in the Record of Rights or drawing or misappropriating the funds lying in any Bank in any manner directly or indirectly personally through their agents, attorney, representatives, relatiyes, assignees, administrators, heirs, etc. Ete.
(m) Cost of the suit be awarded to the plaintiff.
(n) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in favour of the plaintiff may be awarded to the plaintiff, under the-circumstances of the case."
3. ' Alongwith the suit he filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. In which he has claimed the following relief: B "It is prayed that in consideration of the facts mentioned in the memo of Appeal and the supporting affidavit, this Honourable Court may be pleased to grant ad interim injunction restraining the defendants Nos.1, 2, 4 and 8 restraining them from transferring, selling, booking, taking advances, gifting, mortgaging, taking loan from Government or Corporation, constructing anything over the suit land making any entry or mutation in the record of rights or drawing or misappropriating the funds lying in any Bank in any manner, directly or indirectly through their agents, attorneys, servants, representatives, assignees, successorsin-interest, administrations etc. Till final decision of above suit."
4. ' The suit was contested by the respondent Muhammad Akbar son of Sher Muhammad defendant No,1 filed counter-affidavit and the affidavit-inrejoinder was filed by Muhammad Siddique claiming to be the attorney of the plaintiff. The learned IVth Senior Civil Judge vide impugned order refused the relief inter alia on the grounds that the dispute between the parties is of monetary nature, and the balance of inconvenience and injury is not greater to the appellant.
5. ' In this case pre-admission notice was issued. Mr. Jhamat Jethanand, Advocate appeared for the respondents. I have heard the learned counsel on 16-2-1997 and that date the learned counsel for the appellant sought time to file the copies of application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C., supporting affidavit, counter-affidavit and rejoinder, which he filed. The case was heard on 23-2- 1997 when again the learned counsel for the appellant sought time to file written statement which was granted and he filed the written statement. The matter was heard at length on 27-2-1997.
6. ' The contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff is that he has invested Rs,15 millions in partnership. After creation of the partnership he was cheated and the investment made by him have been misappropriated hence he filed the suit. According to him he was entitled to the stay as he had a good prima facie case. Learned counsel for the appellant stated that in paragraph No,5 of the written statement the defendants have admitted about the possession of the appellant and such statement has been disregarded by the learned trial Judge. He relied upon the following cases:
(1) Nooruddin and 3 others v. M/s. Sindh Industrial Trading Estate and 3 others 1993 CLC 2205.
(2) M/s. International Trade and Marketing through Proprietor v. Integra Trade and Marketing and 2 others 1993 CLC 2223.
(3) Muhammad Hussain v. Chairman, Pakistan Telecommunication and others PLD 1995 Lah.
7. 456.
(4) Ch. Nazir Ahmed and 11 others v. Rana Abdul Hamid and 9 others 1990 CLC 385.
8. ' The learned counsel for the respondents stated that the case of the appellant revolves around the partnership which is not registered and in terms of section 69 of the Partnership Act, is not to be looked into nor creates any right between parties neither the same is enforceable. He has further stated that the learned trial Court has rightly refused the injunction as it is not enough that the party should have good prima facie case but at the same time balance of inconvenience and injury must be greater to him. He has relied upon the case reported as Pakistan International Airlines Corporation v. Messrs Hazir (Pvt.) Limited and another PLD 1993 Karachi 190.
9. I have considered the case from every angle and have also considered the citations placed for the consideration by the learned counsel. The basic principles for the grant of interim relief are now well-established. These principles are recognized in the citations relied upon by the learned counsel for the parties. However, these principles ought to be applied on the facts and circumstance of each case. Essentially, therefore, the duty of the Courts always have been to look to the facts of the case, the nature of dispute between the parties and then apply the principle of good prima facie case, inconvenience and injury are the basis of equity which the Courts have to apply in the case of interim injunction. In this case the trial Court was justified to hold that the dispute between the parties revolves around monetary considerations. Strictly in speaking the monetary consideration, howsoeverhigh they may be, do not create the case of hardship or for that matter inconvenience coupled with greater weight of injury on the side of the party praying interim relief. This view has been expressed by the Division Bench of this Court reported in the case of P.I.A. Corporation v. Messrs Hazir (Pvt.) PLD 1993 Karachi 190. In this case, inter alia, the Division Bench of this Court has ruled as follows: "In all cases it is a matter of discretion, whether an injunction will or will not be granted. But the manner of exercise of that discretion depends, upon the precise nature of the particular right, which it is subject to protect and upon all the other material circumstances. An application for an injunction is an appeal to the extraordinary power of the Court and the plaintiff is bound to make out the case showing a clear necessity for its exercise, it being the duty of the Court rather to protect acknowledged right than to establish new and doubtful ones. Discretion exercised by the trial Court is capable of correction by a Court of appeal, for where trial Judge has discretionary powers, the appellate Court has the like discretion and like duty to exercise it. But an appellate Court will not interfere where the discretion of the lower Court has been properly exercised and it is for the appellant to show that a wrong discretion was exercised."
10. In this case the basis of claim is based upon the partnership too. Prima facie the partnership deed is not registered. It has been attested by the Magistrate. Its value is yet to be determined during the course of trial. Consequently, therefore, it could not be said that the plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss or inconvenience is greater to him or for that matter he will sustain greater injury.
11. The order passed by the learned trial Court does not suffer from legal infirmity and, therefore, no exceptions could be taken against such order. After hearing the parties I passed the short order