' MUHAMMAD ZAHOORUL HAQ, J.-In this petition the petitioner has prayed that the order of respondent No, 1, dated 7th December, 1983 be declared to be without lawful authority and respondent No, 1 be directed to grant permission for Housing Scheme proposed by the petitioners and to restrain respondents Nos. 1 and 2 from taking action under the impugned order or from interfering with the possession of the petitioner.
' In the application under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2 read with section 151, C. P. C. The petitioner has prayed for restraining respondents Nos. 1 and 2 or any person claiming under them from taking the threatened action under the impugned order and from interfering with the possession of the petitioner of the said plot. The impugned order of respondent No, 1, dated 7th February, I 983 reads as under :- "Reference to subject-matter cited above, I am directed to intimate you that the plot in question will not be allowed for housing estate in any circumstances. You are hereby advised to submit the plans for the development of amusement park within one month. If you fail to do so, within time limit, the plot in question will be resumed by the competent authority under M. L.
0. 89 and handed over to K. M. C. Which is responsible for parks in P. E. C. H. Society, Any N.
0. C. Issued on the said project by any agency authority is null and void."
' The respondent K. D. A. Has filed a counter-affidavit in which they have stated that they have issued the above letter under instructions from the Governor of Sind. They have filed letter, dated 29th October, 1983 where the Governor has directed the Governing Body of K. D. A. To explain the circumstances of conversion of the plot in dispute from an amenity plot into a housing plot. It was also directed that D. G. A., K. D. A. Will ensure that all further action in the matter is taken after observing all legal formalities.
' It is an admitted position that plot of land No, SPECIAL- D Block 2, P. E. C. H. Society, Karachi measuring 8 Acres was to be used as an amusement park but later on it was changed into Housing Estate which matter would require consideration in this petition as the K. D. A. Is now challenging the validity of the conversion of the said plot. However the present petitioner have purchased the said plot from Messrs Hussain Disalva to whom it was allotted by the P. E. C. H.
Society and there are documents showing that there had been a great deal of correspondence between the parties and no-objection had been obtained from the Ministry of Works to the construction of the residential houses by the petitioner on 10th January, 1983. But there is also an allegation that the Minister of Housing and Town Planning of the Government of Sind had refused the request for conversion of this plot into a Housing Estate. The petitioner has also contended that its predecessor Hussain Disalva had constructed a building on the said plot and completion certificate was given by Building Control Department of K. M. C. On 1st January, 1978 and thereafter 99 years lease of the said plot was given to Hussain Disalva who transferred the same to the petitioner.
' Mr. Qazalbash learned counsel for the respondent K. D. A. Has submitted that K. D. A. Had acted under the orders of the Governor of Sind and hence the Government of Sind was a necessary party to this petition and the petition is not competent without making the Government of Sind a party.
However, these submissions are technical and will be duly considered at the hearing of the main petition, and hence injunction cannot be refused on this ground alone. K. D. A. Has not denied that the petitioners are not the owners of this plot.
' Mr. Khalid M. Ishaque, has on the other hand contended that the petitioner is rightful owner of the said plot of land and it cannot be deprived to make use of the same in the manner which had been stipulated before the K. D. A. Had started interfering in the use of this plot.
' In view of the fact that the petitioner is admittedly the owner of the plot and the respondent No, 2 had executed 99 years lease deed in respect of the said plot and the change in user of the plot had in fact been agreed to and moreover there is so far no order made by any authority under M. L.
0. 89 therefore, without prejudice to the contentions of the parties it would be necessary to safeguard the possession of the petitioner and allow interim relief to the petitioner restraining the respondents from interfering with possession of the plot in question. It may be relevant here to note that the Additional Secretary, Housing and Town Planning of the Government of Sind has made it clear in the Brief Note, produced before us by Mr. Muhammad Ibrahim, Additional A.-G., that there was no intention of taking away the land from the petitioner Company but only to ensure proper land use of the area. The question whether the plaintiff is entitled to any further relief would be considered at the time of hearing of the main petition and for the present purposes it would be sufficient to restrain respondents Nos. 1 and 2 from interfering with the possession of the petitioner in respect of the said plot. No other order of any interim nature is called for at this stage because the question of use of the plot as an amenity plot or Housing Estate can be determined only after hearing the whole petition.