1. ' In this suit the plaintiffs have claimed a sum of Rs, 2,82,053.82 recovered by the defendants from them on account of water charges in respect of their property situated at Nazimabad, Karachi.
2. According to the averments made in the plaint, the defendants were not entitled to recover the same from the plaintiffs.
3. ' The defendants have not denied the recovery of the amount on account of water charges. They have however, denied its liability to refund the same.
4. ' On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed.
(1) Were the defendants not entitled to recover from the plaintiffs a sum of Rs, 2,82,053.82 as wafer charges between 1st July 1962 and 31st December 1970?
(2) Are the defendants liable to refund the amount of Rs, 2,82,053.82 to the plaintiffs?
(3) Are the plaintiffs estopped from claiming the amount in suit?
(4) To what relief, if any, the plaintiffs are entitled? No evidence was led by the parties.
5. ' I have heard Mr. S. Jamil Alam, Deputy Attorney-General for the plaintiffs and Mr. Sabir Hussain Qazilbash Advocate on behalf of the defendants.
6. ' My decision on the issues framed in the suit is as follows : Issue No, 3 : ' So far as issue No, 3 is concerned it is not pressed by Mr. Sabir. Hussain Qazilbash. Even otherwise, the principle of estoppel is not attracted to the facts of this case.
7. ' Issues Nos. 1,2 and 3 : ' Now, I consider issues Nos. 1 and 2. The Deputy Attorney-General has relied on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court, consisting of Muhammad Halim, and Agha Imdadally, JJ. Delivered in Petitions Nos. 29, 81, 84 and 256 of 1971 on 30-4-1972, and reported as Muniruddin Kidwai and 2 others v. Karachi Development Authority (1) wherein demands made by the Karachi Development Authority on account of water charges from the residents of Nazimabad were held to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect on the ground that the Karachi Development Authority had no jurisdiction to demand the same.
8. ' Since this is a Division Bench decision 1 am bound by it. Mr. Sabir Husain Qazilbash has not been able to distinguish this case either on facts or on law. In fact Sabir Husain Qazilbash Advocate admitted before me that now the Karachi Metropolitan Corporation is recovering the charges from the residents of Nazimabad, Karachi. I, therefore, hold that the defendants were not entitled to recover the water charges from the plaintiffs and are therefore liable to refund to them the amount recovered from them. Accordingly, both the issues are decided against the defendants.
9. ' Issue No, 4 : ' In view of the above finding I am of the view that the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for Rs, 2,82,053.82, the amount claimed in the suit, accordingly. I pass a decree for the same with costs. As regards the claim for interest pendente lite I am of the opinion that under the circumstances of this case it should not be awarded. As for future if the defendants pay the decretal amount within one month, from the date hereof no interest will be payable by them, otherwise, they will be liable to pay interest at 6 per cent. Per annum from the date of the decree till payment.