1. ' SYED PIR ALI SHAH, J.--- Through this appeal under section 15 of the Ordinance X of 1980 of Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, order, dated 19-6-2007 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Suit No,382 of 2007, has been assailed by the appellants.
2. ' Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are the residents of a residential area in P.E.C.H.S., Block-2, Karachi, which is comprising bungalows and flats. However, some of them have been occupied for school purposes, viz. Karachi Academy situated at Plot No,140-B, Block-2, P.E.C.H.S. Where at least 300 children are getting education and the other Nakhla School at Plot No,141-C in the same area, where approximately 300 children are getting education.
3. ' The case of the appellants is that respondent No,8 has proposed to run a C.N.G. Station and petrol pump at Plot No,140-A, Block-2, P.E.C.H.S., Allama Iqbal Road, Karachi. The building is situated at Plot No,141-A in which 30 flats/offices are situated and about 100 persons have been living. The school at Plot No,140-B/2 is just behind the Plot No,141-A, Block-2, P.E.C.H.S., in which the respondent No,8 has proposed to establish and run he C.N.G. Station.
4. ' That the respondent No,3 has not invited the public objections nor got the same published in any newspaper resulting the residents of the area were ignorant of the proposed C.N.G. Station to be run at Plot No,140-A. The apprehension of the appellants is that if such proposed petrol pump or C.N.G. Station is established, it will cause great nuisance to all the residents. Morecver, it will create pollution as vehicles including buses, vans will enter the station which is a great threat to the lives of the area people. Further apprehension of the appellants is that the huge gas cylinder has every possibility of being burst and can cause huge blast. The respondent No,4 is a Chief Controller of the Buildings, who works under the control of respondent No,3 and gives permission for installation. The respondent No,5 is the authority of traffic control who is supposed to issue after taking into consideration the security and traffic flow. It is stated that the proposed C.N.G. Station is hardly 36 feet away from the building at Plot No,140-A and just 10 feet away from the Plot No,140-B, which is just behind the proposed C.N.G. Station. Further, in such places mobile and car snatching have become a routine affairs and criminals are expected to move around. That the respondent No,8 is bent upon his illegal and unlawful acts for the proposed C.N.G. Station without even considering the serious risk of road accidents, congestion in the neighbourhood and security problems. The area residents are scared as their lives may become miserable if, the proposed C.N.G. Station is installed. It is further stated that the respondent No,3 has unlawfully conducted the examination and recommended the C.N.G. Station which is absolutely wrong and against the fundamental principles. It is also stated that the respondent No,4 has permitted the respondent No,8 to install the C.N.G. Station perhaps after receiving huge money and under the influence of political persons. It is further stated that the N.O.C. Fraudulently obtained by respondent No,8 is of no legal effect and the same is liable to be withdrawn. That the respondent No,8 has started initial construction secretly as some photographs obtained from the roof of the adjacent building shows that the illegal construction is going on. That the respondents Nos.1 and 4 have issued building plan which has been obtained by the owner by misrepresentation of facts. That the respondent No,8 has no lawful authority to run/establish the C.N.G. Station at the cost of precious lives of the residents, who have made various representations to the concerned authorities requesting therein not to approve and allow the C.N.G. Station to be installed. However, on 29-3-2007 they were astonished to learn that respondent No,3 despite representations has granted approval which is illegal, void and mala fide,.Hence liable to be withdrawn.
5. ' We have heard the learned counsel for respective parties at great length and have also gone through the case papers thoroughly.
6. ' Essentially, the impugned order dated 19-6-2007 passed in Civil Suit No,382 of 2007 is reproduced below:-- "Mr. Masood Ali holding brief for Mr. Zahid Khan requests for adjournment on the ground that the latter has been granted general adjournment upto 2-7-2007. Mr. Farogh Nasim learned counsel for the defendant has vehemently opposed the request for adjournment and has contended that general adjournment has been obtained only to avoid the hearing of the instant suit. It was pointed out by the learned counsel that urgent application in the instant suit was granted on 12-6-2007, fixing the hearing on 19-6-2007, whereas general adjournment was obtained for 15-6-2007 but was granted with the exception of cases fixed by the Court. It was therefore, contended that general adjournment does not apply to the instant case. Mr: Farogh submitted that status quo order, dated 4-4-2007 was upto 24-4-2007 and was never extended and therefore, as per his understanding stands vacated, however, out of sheer respect the defendant has stopped all work of installations and such position is causing heavy monetory loss and further that many "No Objection Certificate" are time bound. It was, therefore, submitted that defendant be allowed to complete installation at their own risk. The request appears to be reasonable and therefore, is allowed. However, it is made clear that the C.N.G. Station would not be operated unless the listed applications are decided one way or the other. Adjourned to 16-7-2007 as suggested.
7. ' Obviously, the impugned order is not a final order disposing of the main injunction application. Of course, initially status quo order was passed on 4-4-2007 upto 24-4-20007 which was never got extended afterwards. The impugned order was, therefore, passed to the extent that the defendant was allowed to complete installation at their own risk. It was further made clear that the C.N.G.
8. Station would not be operated unless the listed applications are decided one way or the other. The matter was, therefore, adjourned to 16-7-2007 for the requisite purpose. In this. H.C.A. Learned counsel for appellants has assailed the impugned order on as much as 18 grounds. It has been agitated that the impugned order is not speaking order and that the learned counsel for the plaintiff was on general adjournment due to his personal problems and the material available on record was not taken into consideration for modifying the orders of status quo passed earlier. As mentioned above, the injunction application bearing C.M.A. No,4768 of 2007 is pending decision before the Court. At the very outset it is to be mentioned here that the impugned order is a balanced order for the reason that as mentioned in order, dated 27-6-2007 passed in Civil Suit No,573 of 2007 that the defendant No,8 undertook that he will not operate upon the C.N.G. Station till final decision by the Court. Simultaneously, defendant No,8 also undertook that in case decision of the Court is otherwise, he would dismantle and demolish the construction etc. Made by him for the purpose of C.N.G. Station. The rights and interest of the plaintiffs are totally secured and his apprehensions are over. Apparently, there appears no any fault or illegality so far the impugned order, dated 19-6-2007 is concerned. It has been held by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in a case reported in 1995 SCMR page 753 that the undertaking given by the respondent was considered a sufficient protection of the interest of the petitioner. It has also been held in a unreported case in Civil Petition No,392 of 1995, dated 5-12-1995 by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan that any construction raised by the petitioner on the plot and or any third party interest created in suit property will be entirely at the risk of the petitioner and subject to the result of appeal. These are the enlightening authorities very much applicable to the present case.
9. ' In view of the above cited authorities of the Honourable Supreme Court, the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for appellants, are without any force. At the most, they can agitate these arguments as and when injunction application is finally heard and disposed of on merits.
10. Apparently there appears no fault or any illegality in the impugned order, which was passed in order to accommodate and safeguard the interest of both the parties. Conclusively, it is determined that this H.C.A. Is without any merits and as such, the same is dismissed.
11. ' These are the reasons for the short order whereby this H.C.A. Was dismissed on 1-2-2008.