NASIM SIKANDAR, J. --- The appellants filed a suit for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction as a consequential relief and for recovery of money as damages before a Civil Court at Lahore. The prayer made in the plaint reads as under:- "IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS it is most respectfully prayed that:-
(1) A decree for declaration be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.
(a) To the extent that the sanction of Building plans of Boulevard heights by defendant No. 1 is collusive and unlawful in so far as it violates the standards, the rules, regulations and other laws governing the construction of multi-storied plaza.
The impugned sanction may graciously be declared to be contrary to the rights of the plaintiffs.
(b) It may graciously be declared that the excavation done by Boulevard heights is inadequate and amounts to serious violation of law besides offending right to life and right to property guaranteed under the law.
(c) That the excavation and construction under the name and style of Boulevard heights by defendant No. 6 may graciously be declared to be illegal and in violation of the L.D.A. Act and L.D.A.
Building, Regulations, 1984/2005 and other. Laws. It may also be graciously declared that the defendants Nos. 1 to 6 are jointly and severally liable for the damage caused to the property of the plaintiffs and for the consequent mental torture to them.
(d) That it may graciously be declared that excavation carried out by defendant No. 6 by Boulevard heights is a serious threat to the life and property of the plaintiffs and public-at-large by way of declaratory decree.
(2) A decree for permanent injunction be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against defendants restraining defendants from any further undertaking, excavation and construction with respect to .Boulevard heights.
(3) A decree for mandatory injunction be also passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants jointly and severally directing them to immediately take steps to ensure safety of the property of the plaintiffs.
(4) For the reasons stated in the plaint, a decree for recovery of money as damages amounting to Rs. 10,900,0000/- may also be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against defendants jointly and severally."
2. Alongwith the suit an application for temporary injunction was filed it was accepted only "to the extent that defendant No. 6, L.D.A. And defendant No. '5, D.C.O. Are .Directed to ensure immediate protection of the property of the plaintiffs till the disposal of the suit. To the extent of rest of the. Prayer, the application stands rejected."
3. Earlier the learned Trial Court Civil Judge 1st Class Lahore, in the impugned order dated 28.11.2005 C.L.R. observed that the learned counsel representing Lahore Development Authority (LDA) categorically stated that the construction at site was being raised in accordance with the site plan sanctioned by the L.D.A Further that no violation of any rule having been observed by the officials of the L.D.A., the stoppage of construction will not be justified.
4. It is the case of the appellants that even in the plaint it was alleged that the site plan approved by the L.D.A. Was collusive and secondly that the construction at site was not being carried out in accordance thereof. By making reference to various clauses of L.D.A. Building Regulations, 1984/2005, Learned counsel assets that the construction at site is clearly not only these regulations but also even the approved site plan. Therefore, it is arguea that in view of the allegation of collusion between the defer dants/respondents with the officials of the L.D.A. Learned Trial Court wrongly believed the statement of their counsel that the construction at site was not violative of either the bye- laws of the LDA or the approved site plan.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No. 6, on the other hand, states that four basements having already been completed and the construction now being done above the surface level, the apprehension of the appellants of any damage to their property due to excavation of underground floors has withered away. Learned counsel representing the LDA repeals that the project in question is being monitored by the officials of the Authority regularly and that no violation of building bye-laws or the approved plan has been observed.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties I will agree with the learned Trial Court that in view of the satisfaction of the regularly authority that the construction at site was not violative of the building regulations or the approval plan, the appellant cannot be sa d to have a prima facie case for issuance of a restraint order to stop the construction at site.
7. Also learned counsel for respondent No. Is correct in pointing out that the structure of the multi- storied building having already sprung up above the earth level, the apprehension of damage to the property of the appellants on account of digging of the earth for making basements is no more there. As far the alleged damage already caused to the property of the appellants, their claim for recovery of money as damages amounting to Rs. 10,90,00,000/- is pending and will be decided by the Trial Court after admitting evidence of the parties and hearing them. At this stage balance of convenience also does not lean in favour of the appellants. Therefore, no case for interference in the impugned order is made out.
8. Appeal rejected.