Interim injunction

Prayer for interim injunction against elected body/Association — High Court has not violated any principle of law on the subject of grant of interim relief — This Court does not interfere in the discretionary matters unless a principle of law has been violated or the order appealed from has resulted in grave injustice — Respondents functioning as office bearers, if restrained, the interest of the general body would suffer. Appeal dismissed. S. Muhammad Abdul Rashid & others v. Ch. Sadaqat Ali & others 1995 SCR 305 (A)
Issuance of — All that the Court has to see is that on the face of it the person applying for an injunction has a case which needs consideration and the comparative balance of convenience and inconvenience has also to be looked into — The Court does not profess to determine the legal rights of the parties in respect of property but acts on the assumption that the party seeking its interference has the legal right and needs the aid of the Court for protection of legal right until the legal right is finally ascertained — It is not necessary that the Court should find a case which entitles the plaintiff to succeed at all events. M. Rasab and another v. M. Saddique Chaudhry 1998 SCR 216 (A)
The meaning of balance of convenience in favour of plaintiff is that if an injunction is not granted and the suit is ultimately decided in favour of the plaintiff the inconvenience caused to the plaintiff would be greater than that which would be caused to the defendant if an injunction is granted but suit is ultimately dismissed — Although it is called balance of convenience; it is really the balance of convenience and it is for the plaintiffs to show that inconvenience to be caused to them would be greater that which may be caused to the defendant. Muhammad Rasab and another v. Muhammad Saddique Chaudhry 1998 SCR 216 (B)
At the stage of granting or refusing the interim injunction, the Court has to see as to whether a prima facie case has been made out or not and it not expected to closely examine the merits of the case. Zafar Farooq v. Dil Nawaz Khan 2000 SCR 163 (A)
In exercising jurisdiction the Court does not profess to determine the legal rights of the parties in respect of the property, but acts on the assumption that the party seeking its interference has the legal right and needs the aid of the Court for the protection of the right until the legal right is finally ascertained. Zafar Farooq v. Dil Nawaz Khan 2000 SCR 163 (C)
The plaintiff must satisfy the Court that there is a fair and substantial question to be tried and there is a probability of his obtaining a decree if the evidence remains as it is — It follows prima facie that the existence of a right and its infringement are the first condition for the grant of temporary injunction — All that the Court has to see is that on the face of it the person applying for injunction has a case which needs consideration action and the comparative balance of convenience and inconvenience has also to be looked into. Zafar Farooq v. Dil Nawaz Khan 2000 SCR 163 (B)