Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd Vs KP Economic Development & Managment Company through its CEO etc

IN THE PESHAWAR HIGH COURT, PESHAWAR

[JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT]

C.R No. 1364-P/2025 with CM No. 2108-P/2025 and C.M No. 1996-P/2025

Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited ....................................................Petitioners Vs Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Economic Zones Development & Management Company through its CEO etc. ............................... ........Respondents Present: Mr. Muhammad Farooq Afridi, advocate, along with Laila Tariq, (representative of PTCL) for the petitioners.

Respondent is not represented being a motion case.

Date of hearing: 05.12.2025

JUDGMENT

MUHAMMAD IJAZ KHAN, J.- Through this Civil Revision Petition, petitioner has challenged the order and judgment of the learned Addl: District Judge-XV, Peshawar dated 23.08.2025, whereby, the appeal filed by the present petitioner was dismissed and thereby maintained the order and judgment of the learned Civil Judge-VIII, Peshawar dated 18.04.2025, who vide the same had dismissed an application of the present petitioner for grant of temporary injunction.

2.Precisely, the facts essential for the disposal of this revision petition are that the petitioner is a Public Limited Company in which the Federal Government has the majority share, whereas the respondent/ defendant is also a Public Limited Company fully run and owned by The Provincial Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, established under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Taking Over of the Industrial Estate and Economic Zones Act, 2016 and is the successor of erstwhile Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Development Authority. In discharge of its duty, the defendant has issued a notice to the petitioner/plaintiff dated 01.06.2023 having a reference of other notices dated 10.04.2023 and 03.05.2023 to the effect that it intends to initiate cancellation proceedings of plot No. 2-A, situated in Industrial Area, Hayatabad, Peshawar or else to clear all its dues and to establish that the allotted land is being used as per the allotment terms and conditions of the lease deed and to stop the illegal activities on the alleged lease land, which notification dated 01.06.2023 has challenged by the petitioner/plaintiff through the instant suit, whereby, they have sought a declaration from the Civil Court to the effect that they are owner of the suit plot and that the impugned notice dated 01.06.2023 is illegal, without jurisdiction

and without lawful authority and thus, ineffective upon his rights. It has also prayed for issuance of perpetual and mandatory injunction by directing the respondent/ defendants to restrain it from the cancellation of the suit plot. When the respondents then defendants were summoned, they submitted their written statement, whereby, they denied the assertion of the petitioner/ plaintiff on many factual and legal grounds including that though the plot was allotted to the petitioner/ plaintiff, however, such allotment was subject to the performance of certain terms and conditions, which have not been complied by petitioner/plaintiff. The petitioner/plaintiff along with the plaint has also filed an application for the grant of temporary injunction to the effect that the respondent/ defendant may be restrained from taking any adverse action against the petitioner/ plaintiff, with respect to suit plot No. 2-A, which application was duly contested by the respondent/ defendant and as such, after hearing both the parties, the learned trial court had dismissed the same vide one of the impugned order dated 18.04.2025.

Considering themselves, aggrieved of the aforesaid order, the respondent/defendant filed an appeal before the learned Addl: District Judge-XV, Peshawar, which was also dismissed vide second impugned order dated 23.08.2025, hence, the instant revision petition.

3.Arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner were heard in considerable detail and record perused with his able assistance.

4.On the previous date i.e. 01.12.2024, the case was heard in detail, however, it was adjourned for today as the petitioner made a request to produce the lease deed of the suit plot, executed between the parties, however, today, when this case was called, learned counsel for the petitioner along with Ms. Laila Tariq, representative of PTCL appeared and stated that they could not lay hand on any deed pertaining to the suit plot, therefore, this court now proceeds to decide the instant revision petition in light of the arguments already advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

5.The record would show that it is the case of petitioner/ plaintiff that he is a legal and lawful allotee of the subject plot No. 2-A, situated in the Industrial Estate, Hayatabad, Peshawar and as such, the impugned intimation notice dated 01.06.2023 for initiating the process of cancellation of subject plot is illegal, whereas, the stance of the respondent/defendant as per their written statement and reply to the application for the grant of interim injunction is that though, the said plot was allotted to the petitioner/ plaintiff, however, the said allotment was made subject to the performance of

certain terms and conditions on the part of the petitioner/ plaintiff, which it has not fulfilled till date. The record also shows that the said allotment was made way back in the year, 1974 and thus, despite lapse of more than 50 years, the petitioner/ plaintiff has not prima facie fulfilled the terms and conditions up to the satisfaction of the allotment authority. It is also part of the record that though it is the case of petitioner/ plaintiff that it intends to use the said plot for expansion of its operational services and installation of new machinery, however, in this regard too, it has not appended any supporting material to prima facie support its this stance as well.

6.In view of the above, when on one hand there is a company in which The Federal Government has the majority shares and on the other, there is a company, which is fully owned and run by The Provincial Government then the pleas of both of them have to be analyzed that as to which of them is legally correct in accordance with its mandate and relevant law/rules and regulations on the subject and thus on the aforesaid yardstick, the respondent/ defendant while discharging its official duties has issued the impugned notice to the petitioner/plaintiff for fulfilling of the terms and conditions, which as per their stance has not been

fulfilled till date and thus, it has acted within its lawful authority, whereas, the stance of the petitioner/ plaintiff is that there was a valid lease deed executed by it with the respondent/ defendant, however, in this regard as stated herein above, it could not produce any such deed neither before the lower court nor before this court and thus, it has prima facie no case for the issuance of the desired interim injunction.

7.It may be relevant to mention here that for grant of the interim injunction, the petitioner/ plaintiff has to establish that it has a prima facie case or at least, it has an arguable case, which is prima facie missing in the case of the present petitioner. Had the petitioner/ plaintiff was in possession of a valid lease deed and had it been prima facie established that it has performed all the terms and conditions of the said deed on its part then, in such eventuality, it would have been entitled for the grant of interim injunction, but as stated herein above, that the petitioner/plaintiff has to go a long way to establish its stance during the course of the trial and thus, for the time being, a public functionary i.e.

respondent/ defendant could not be restrained from performance of its lawful duty in view of the bar contained under sub-clause (d) of section 56 of The Specific Relief Act, 1877, which mandates that an

injunction has to be refused in cases, where a party seeks interference in the public duties of any department or entity owned or controlled by the Government. It may be clarified that since the impugned notice dated 01.06.2023 arises out of statutory functions entrusted to the respondent-company and the court of law has to exercise restraint where judicial interference is likely to obstruct the discharge of public duties or to frustrate any administrative decision undertaken in the public interest.

8.Similarly, the petitioner has also not prima facie established on available record that in case of refusal of interim injunction, it would suffer an irreparable loss as from the available pleadings/materials it could easily be gathered that the allotted plot is still lying unutilized and the petitioner/plaintiff is operating its day-to-day activities in the building adjacent to the suit plot.

Similarly, the petitioner/plaintiff has also not been able to prima facie establish that the balance of inconvenience leans in its favor as during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner had admitted that the petitioner is operating in the area and that petitioner intends to utilize the subject plot for expansion of its operational activities, and thus, for the time being the question of its inconvenience does not arise in the case. It is settled jurisprudence that for the

grant of interim injunction three essential ingredients must co-exit i.e. prima facie case, irreparable loss, and balance of inconvenience, however, none of the grounds prima facie exists in favour of the petitioners/plaintiffs.

It is also settled law that for the grant of temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 2 CPC, the party is required to establish a prima facie case, balance of inconvenience and factum of an irreparable loss, if the interim injunction is refused, however, in the case of present petitioners/plaintiffs all the three pre-requisite ingredients are apparently missing, therefore, the desired interim relief could not be granted to them. This Court, in a recent judgment rendered in a case 1, has held that, for grant of temporary injunction, it is sine-qua-non for the petitioners/plaintiffs to have on record a prima facie case qua balance of convenience and irreparable loss with co-existence of these ingredients in their favour.

Similarly, in another case2 the Sindh High Court has also held that no injunction can be issued unless all required ingredients namely prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss to aggrieved party, were found to subsist.

Javed Iqbal and 5 others vs. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Local Government, Peshawar and 4 others (2022 CLC 502)

Shahzad Trade Links through Sole Proprietor and another vs. MTW Pak Assembling Industries (Private) Limited through Representative and others (2016 CLC 83)

9.In view of the above discussion and exposition of law on the subject, this petition along with CMs being bereft of any merits are hereby dismissed in limine.

Announced

(Sher Hassan)

JUDGE

(S.B) Hon’ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ijaz Khan, J