This civil revision is directed against the orders dated 8-5-1997 and 19-5-1997, respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge and learned Additional District Judge, Sargodha, whereby the present petitioner was granted ad-interim injunction subject to deposit by him outstanding amount, failing which, the interim relief would stand vacated.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the dispute relatesto the contract of octroi awarded to the petitioner being the highest bidder for Rs,33,02,000 in the year 1996-97 by the Town Committee, Shahpur, District Sargodha. Learned counsel has stated that during the year 1995-96, the contract of octroi was awarded to some other person for Rs,20,05,000 with 10% increase for the next year with extra increase if the local limits of the Town Committee were extended by the Provincial Government. He further pointed out that for the next year 1997-98, the octroi contract has been awarded to one Muhammad Aslam for Rs,25,40,000 only. Learned counsel argued that there was express clauses 15 and 23 of the Contract whereby the respondent-Town Committee had assured that the local limits of the Town Committee were most likely to be extended by the Provincial Government and this impression led to the petitioner of making the highest bid for securing the contract. Learned counsel further submitted that on account of the Contract based on misrepresentation the petitioner was under no obligation to make the payment of the outstanding amount to the respondent Town Committee nor the respondent-Town Committee could take undue advantage of its own improper conduct in the Contract.
3. Learned counsel for respondent No,1 has argued that by order dated 8-5-1997 ad-interim injunction had been granted to the petitioner by the learned Civil Judge subject to the condition to make the payment of the outstanding dues within three days which he failed to abide by. Learned counsel further submitted the view taken by the learned trial Court was affirmed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sargodha, by a speaking and well reasoned order passed on 19-5-1997.
Consequently, the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed. Learned counsel further contended that the very civil suit filed by the petitioner was not competent in view of the terms of Contract between the parties. He argued that necessary conditions for the grant of temporary injunction had not been satisfied by the petitioner. It was also stated that earlier Writ Petition No,21473 of 1996 filed by the petitioner for reducing the contractual amount was also dismissed by this Court on 9- 4-1997.
4. Learned Additional A.G. appearing on behalf of respondent No,2 supported the arguments of the learned counsel for respondent No,1.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of the case.
The impugned order dated 8-5-1997 was just ad-interim in nature and the petitioner himself failed to abide by its terms. The learned appellate Court has rightly taken the view that the application of the petitioner for grant of temporary injunction had not been finally adjudicated upon by the learned trial Court. I am of the view that as long as the petitioner is holding the contract till 30-6- 1997, he is liable to make the payment of the contractual amount. The petitioner cannot avoid his liabilities and to continue deriving the benefit of the Contract without discharging his liabilities towards the Town Committee, Shahpur, in terms of the contract. Even otherwise, no irreparable loss would be caused to the petitioner if the temporary injunction is refused. The balance of convenience also lies in favour of the fulfilment of the Contractual obligations by the parties. It is also very doubtful whether the present civil revision arising out of ad-interim orders passed by the learned Trial Court and affirmed by the learned appellate Court is at all maintainable, being not a case decided.
6. For the foregoing reasons, this civil revision fails and is dismissed in limine.