1. ' SABIHUDDIN AHMED, J.---Both these (counter-petitions) tielate to unlawful construction raised in a Katchi Abadi without any plan duly approved by the respondent No.2 (KBCA). In C.P. No.D-861 of 2003 petitioner Kashif has alleged that such unlawful construction is raised by respondent No.3 Sadiq Ali whereas in C.P. No.D-1029 of 2003 petitioner Sadiq Ali has made the same allegations against respondent No.3 Kashif. Interestingly both parties are being represented by the same learned counsel and while pressing their respective petitions both Messrs Mazher Ali B. Chohan and M.M. Tariq have sought direction requiring the respondent No.2 to perform their legal obligations and at the same time while defending their position on behalf of respondents both of them have argued that the provisions of Sindh Building Cotrol Act are not applicable to properties located in Katchi Abadi.
2. Indeed, it is well-settled that a party cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time and we are constrained to observe that learned counsel who are officers of the Court ought to have acted with a greater amount of responsibility and taken consistent position instead of unnecessarily wasting the Court's time. Stricter adherence to etiquette at the bar is required.
3. ' In any event, in favour of the contention regarding non-application of the provisions of the Ordinance our attention is drawn as regards the question of applicability to the Ordinance to land in Katchi Abadi. It may be mentioned that in the C.P. No.D-1516 of 1999 we have the occasion to consider this question and after hearing came to the view that in the absence of a notification under section 35 of the Katchi Abadi Act, 1987 excluding the operation on certain laws, the provisions of the Ordinance were applicable to lands located within Katchi Abadi. Indeed, we are informed that a petition for leave to appeal was filed against the aforesaid order and the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed the following order:-- "ORDER ' Issue notices to respondents and A.G. For date to be fixed in next Sessions of this Court at Karachi.
4. Till then status quo be maintained."
5. ' It may be observed that only the parties have been directed to maintain status quo and even the effect of the judgment has not been suspended. In any event the above order could not be treated as law declared which we are respectfully bound to follow and since the question has been specifically decided by this Bench, we are of the view that we are not entitled to take a different view. For these reasons we would allow both the petitions and direct the respondent No.2. To perform its obligation in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. accordingly.