Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: Messrs SHANGRILA HOTELS/RESORTS (PVT.) LTD. through Managing Director VS Respondent: GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P., COMMUNICATIONS AND WORKS (C&W) DEPARTMENT through Secretary (C&W), Peshawar and 6 others
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Fazal Karim, Saleem Akhter Title:Messrs SHANGRILA HOTELS/RESORTS (PVT.) LTD. through Managing Director
vs GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P., COMMUNICATIONS AND WORKS (C&W) DEPARTMENT through Secretary (C&W), Peshawar and 6 others Case No.: Civil Petition No,608 of 1995 F.A.O. No,3 of 1995 Date of Judgment:1996-03-13 Reported As: 1998 SCMR 2349 Result: Order accordingly Judgment ORDER ' SALEM AKHTAR, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the learned Judges of the High Court whereby its appeal against the order refusing to grant interim relief was dismissed. 2. The respondents had leased out Pines Hotel to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the respondents illegally dispossessed the petitioner and took possession of the building. The stand taken by the respondents was that the petitioner had failed to pay huge amount of lease as provided by the lease deed and therefore in terms of the lease they took over possession from the petitioner. The petitioner filed suit against the respondents for possession, permanent injunction, damages and in the alternative for recovery of Rs,38,41,480 and another sum of .Rs,2 crores with interest. The petitioner had also filed an application for interim injunction and had sought possession of the hotel. This application was dismissed by the learned trial Court and the appeal filed against it was also dismissed with the direction that the trial Court shall decide the suit in short possible time, but not later than six months. Both the Courts have held that the petitioner had failed to make out a prima facie case and no irreparable loss will be caused to the petitioner. 3. As the learned counsel for the petitioner did not appear, Mr. Arif, the Managing Director of the petitioner hotel, stated that he would be satisfied if the respondents do not lease out the hotel to any other party and the suit is disposed of at an early date. The High Court has already given a direction for disposal of the suit. At this stage Mr. Sardar Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Mr. Saifur Rehman Kiyani, learned Advocate-General, N.-W.F.P. Made statement that during the
---
## Page 2
pendency of the suit, the respondents would not lease out the disputed property to any 'other person. However, they would run the hotel themselves. This statement was acceptable to Mr. Arif and the petition is disposed of in terms of this statement.