Khan v Meghji Arjun & Company [2010] FJHC 342; HBC153.2010 (6 August 2010)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT LAUTOKA
CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Action No HBC 153 of 2010

BETWEEN:

IFTAKHAR IQBAL AHMAD KHAN trading as IQBAL
KHAN & ASSOCIATES.
Plaintiff

AND:

MEGHJI ARJUN & COMPANY
1st Defendant

AND:

DIRECTOR OF LANDS
2nd Defendant

ORDER OF THE COURT:

Counsel Dorsami Naidu supports the application of the Plaintiff. Having read the affidavit of the Plaintiff, I note that the Plaintiff has issued the cheques admittedly and there is a sum of $42,612.50 claimed on them by the first Defendant. The cheques have been issued prior to 30th June 2010 as one cheque has been even paid upon by 30th June 2010. Plaintiff states at paragraph 26 of his affidavit that if the business of the Plaintiff at No 151 Vitogo Parade is closed by the first Defendant as conveyed by its letter of 4 August 2010, then not only to the Plaintiff but obviously there would be potential harm to his clients who are litigants in Lautoka. It is this aspect that has a bearing on changing the balance of convenience.

However, at the same time the first Defendant too is entitled to recover any arrears of rent if any on which cheques have been given. The Plaintiff has not complained of the duress alleged when giving the cheques at the earliest opportunity and has even permitted one cheque to be paid upon. The remedy of injunction ought not to be used to avoid contractual obligations, as such subject to conditions, I enjoin the first defendant by injunction and restrain the first Defendant and or his agents and or his servants from interfering with the quiet enjoyment and use of the premises No 157, Vitogo Parade, Lautoka for the purpose of carrying on the practice of a Barrister and a Solicitor by Plaintiff subject to the condition that such injunction shall issue on the payment to court and subject to the deposit in court by the Plaintiff of the sum of $43,000.00 as security. Mr D Naidu on being asked by court confirmed that the Plaintiff is a person of means.

As such the injunction sought in paragraph 1 of the Plaintiff's Ex parte Motion dated 5 August 2010 is only issued, subject to the alteration as set out above and subject to the condition of the deposit of the security in the sum of $43,000.00 in court as above.

Considering the urgency of the matter the Plaintiff is given time till Monday 9 August 2010 4pm to deposit the said security and the injunction as above may issue subject to the said deposit being made. If the Plaintiff fails to make the said deposit of $43,000.00 by 4.00pm of 9 August 2010, the injunction issued as above shall lapse automatically.

If the deposit of $43,000.00 is made to Court before 4.00pm on 9 August 2010, the injunction shall continue till further orders of court provided the Plaintiff makes the monthly rental payment of $1,012.50 per month to the first Defendant.

As such the aforesaid order of injunction subject to the said conditions to be communicated to the first Defendant at the earliest.

Counsel D. Naidu states that normal service is sufficient.

Sgd
Y I Fernando
JUDGE

At Lautoka
6 August 2010

Mr Naidu is informed that the words "and/or any person or persons" in the Ex parte of Motion ought to be omitted and as such injunction is issued with that alteration, as stated in my above order.