Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: THE GOVERNMENT OF SIND THROUGH THE SECRETARY COMMUNICATIONS & WORKS DEPARTMENT, KARACHI AND Another VS Respondent: GHULAM MUHAMMAD
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Waheeduddin Ahmad, Sajjad Ahmad Jan Title:THE GOVERNMENT OF SIND THROUGH THE SECRETARY COMMUNICATIONS &
WORKS DEPARTMENT, KARACHI AND Another vs GHULAM MUHAMMAD Case No.: Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. K-78 of 1972 Date of Judgment:1973-02-27 Reported As: 1973 SCMR 96 Result: Leave refused Judgment ORDER WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD, J.-The respondent filed Civil Suit No. 5 of 1971, in the Court of First Class Civil Judge, Sukkur, seeking declaration and permanent injunction. Along with the plaint, he also filed an application under Order XXXIX, rule 1, C. P. C. For grant of interim injunction restraining the petitioner from reverting the respondent to the post of Overseer and to allow him to continue as Assistant Engineer. The Civil Judge, First Class, Sukkur, after hearing the parties, granted temporary injunction, by order dated the 12th January 1971. The petitioner Government challenged this order in appeal before the District Judge, Sukkur, which was dismissed on the 11th June 1971. The matter was then taken in Revision Application No. 353 of 1971, in the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan, Karachi. A learned Single Judge of the High Court, by judgment dated the 8th August 1972, dismissed the revision petition The petitioners seek permission to file an appeal against the said judgment. The contention of the petitioners is that the respondent was appointed as temporary Overseer with effect from the 3rd July 1949, and was confirmed as such with effect from the 1st April 1955. Subsequently, the respondent was promoted as officiating Sub-Divisional Officer with effect from the 26th October 1961, which was on temporary basis and as stop-gap arrangement and that he had never been promoted as Assistant Engineer. According to the learned counsel, in these circumstances, the lower Courts should not have issued temporary injunction against the Department. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has relied on the case of the Province of West Pakistan through The Deputy Commissioner, Hyderabad and another v. Malik Asghar Khan (1971SCMR569), in which it was held that temporary injunction should not be issued to the Departments as it is likely to disturb their work. The authority cited by the learned counsel is
---
## Page 2
distinguish-- able. In that case, the Courts below have refused injunction and the High Court has granted temporary injunction. In the present case, all the Courts below have upheld the order of injunction. In our opinion, the question whether temporary injunction should have been granted or not was a discretionary matter. In the present case, we are satisfied that the injunction has been granted on sound grounds. The documents on the record, prima facie, show that the appointment of the respondent was not on temporary basis as Assistant Engineer. In these circumstances, there is no force in the petition which is dismissed.