' MIAN SHAKIRULLAH JAN, J.--- This civil petition is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Writ Petition No,6223 of 1993, whereby the writ petition of the petitioner, filing against the order passed by the two Courts below i.e, Civil Court and the Additional District Judge, refusing to grant interim relief against the encashment of Bank guarantee, was dismissed.
2. The Ghee Corporation of Pakistan through the Privatization Commission, Ministry of Finance, Government of Pakistan, agreed to sell its shares of Company for a consideration of Rs,2,12,21,200 vide sale agreement, dated 28-8-1991. After the transfer of shares, the management, possession and control of the project were handed over on 16-10-1991 to the petitioner. Under clause 11 of the sale agreement, the statement of accounts in respect of the amount due between the parties was to be prepared and to be secured through a Bank guarantee to be furnished by the petitioner. A reconciliation statement of account was prepared as payable by the petitioner, however, the said statement was shown as subject to audit. In order to secure the aforesaid amount, the petitioner furnished bank guarantee issued by the Bank to the tune of Rs,22 million. The payment was to be made within a period of two years. According to the petitioner, the joint audit is required, was not carried out and an attempt was made for the encashment of the Bank guarantee which necessitated filing of an application by the petitioner under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 before the Civil Court, Lahore with a prayer to refer the dispute to the arbitration. An application for grant of interim relief with a prayer to restrain the respondent from encashing the Bank guarantee was also submitted. The learned Civil Judge, dismissed the application vide order, dated 12-10-1994 which was challenged before the Additional District Judge, Lahore but with the same result vide order dated 7-5-1995. The petitioner dissatisfied with the aforesaid orders filed a Constitutional petition (W.P. No,6223 of 1995) before the learned High Court calling in question the said orders, which was dismissed.
4. After dismissal of the writ petition, the petitioner approached this Court through a Civil Petition No,396/L of 2002 which was allowed and the case was remanded back to the learned High Court for its decision afresh vide order, dated 18-4-2002 which reads as under: "With the consent of both the parties, the petition is converted into appeal and the same is allowed.
The case is remanded back to the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore for consideration afresh all the factual as well as the legal aspects of the matter after affording an opportunity of hearing to both the parties and to decide the same afresh possibly within one month as the huge amount of Rs,22 million of public exchequer is involved in this case."
5. The learned High Court in pursuance of the aforesaid order heard both the parties after affording an opportunity of hearing and the writ petition was again dismissed on 7-8-2002 against which the instant petition has been field before this Court.
6. We have heard Malik Qammar Afzal, Advocate Supreme Court learned counsel for the petitioner at some length. He has argued that the Court below have not given due attention to the condition attached to the Bank guarantee and which resulted in the impugned judgment.
7. The learned Judge of the High Court has taken pain and attended to all aspects of the case both on facts as well as legal. The principles/ (ingredients), governing the grant of temporary injunction, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, were discussed and it was held that the petitioner could not make out a case for grant of temporary injunction. It was also observed that the relief is sought for, is discretionary with the Court and that has been properly exercised and the same was not found to be arbitrary, perverse or fanciful and also declined to exercise the Constitutional jurisdiction in the matter which is otherwise discretionary and equitable as the impugned orders of the two Courts below was held to be legal and unexceptional.
In view of well-reasoned judgment of the High Court, the principle laid down by this Court that non- interference with the interim order passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction is a rule and interference is an exception as reported in Ramzan Sugar Mills Ltd. And others v. Mian Miraj-ud-Din and others 1994 SCM R 2281 is fully attracted to the instant case.
9. Consequently, the impugned judgment does not deserve interference and this petition is dismissed accordingly. .