1. ' S.A. SARWANA, J.---Pursuant to this Court's Order dated 30-8-1999 Mr.Sultan Khalid Masood Khattak, Chief Executive Officer of Clifton Cantonment Board and Colonel Athar Ali Khan. Secretary, DHA, have appeared and explained the position. They are exempted from attending the Court until further order.
2. ' Mr. Imam states that D.G. KDA is unable to attend the Court today as he was not able to contact him after receipt of the Court Notice by him late last evening due to extreme pressure of work. The attendance of D.G. KDA, is also dispensed until further order.
3. Mr. Khalid Mahmood makes on Oral Motion that Defendant No,3/DHA may be deleted from the list of defendants as it has been wrongly impleaded as a defendant in this suit and that it has nothing to do with the construction or approval of the plan in respect of the plot in question. He further adds that DHA has neither taken any action nor intends to take any action in respect of plot in question as the same is not within its jurisdiction.
4. ' Mr. Shamsul Islam submits that he has made Defence Housing Authority a party defendant because the office of Defendant No,2 is situated in the building owned by Defendant No,3 and that the Administrator of Defence Housing Authority is also the Chairman of Clifton Cantonment Board.
5. On inquiry from plaintiff it appears that the grievance of the plaintiff is against Clifton Cantonment Board/Defendant No,2 which has jurisdiction over the area where the property of the Plaintiff is situated. According to Mr. Khalid Mehmood Advocate the Administrator never exercised any authority over the property of the plaintiff and all action in respect of the plaintiff's plot was taken by Clifton Cantonment Board through its Chief Executive Officer. He has added that the Station Commander Karachi is the President of Clifton Cantonment Board and Administrator of Defence Housing Authority by virtue of his office as Station Commander but Defence Housing Authority and Clifton Cantonment Board are two different entities. It is, therefore, apparent that, DHA has been impleaded wrongly without proper legal research and inquiry.
6. ' In view of the above position, the Oral Motion of Mr. Khalid Mehmood is granted and the office is directed to strike off the name of DHA from the array of the defendants.
7. ' It would not be out of place to mention here that it is the duty of every counsel to check the law and file the suit against appropriate persons and not implead parties unnecessarily thereby causing them unnecessary harassm ent and inconvenience. The plaintiffs counsel did not carry out proper inquiry and impleaded DHA as a defendant on frivolous grounds when it had nothing whatsoever to do with the property in question. The inclusion of DHA as defendant No,3 was patently vexatious to the knowledge of the plaintiff. Consequently, the plaintiff shall pay special costs of Rs,10,000 (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) under section 35-A to Defendant No,3 by Pay Order drawn in the name of DHA by delivering the same to the Administrator or its Counsel Mr. Khalid Mehmood Advocate within fifteen days from today.
8. ' Counsel for the parties' request for time to file Counter Affidavit to the Application. Mr. Islam does not oppose the request. Time granted.
9. ' By consent adjourned to 7-10-1999.