This revision petition is connected with Writ Petition No.4731 of 1985 brought by Mst. Akhtar-un-Nisa.
That writ petition has been disposed of today by a separate order.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents are raising a commercial plaza containing 216 rooms, in two floors above the ground at No.l-A, Gulberg, II located on the Main Boulevard of Gulberg. The premises were commercialised in 1983 on the payment of necessary fee at the rate of Rs.1,00,000 per Kanal on the request of Mrs. Bhandara, the previous owner of the property. She submitted a plan to construct 90 shops which was sanctioned. In 1985 the present respondents purchased the property from Mrs. Bhandara and on 22-7-1985 applied for sanction of revised building plans to the L. D . AUnder regulation' 10 of the Building Regulations, 1976, the plans are to be sanctioned within a period of 60 days and if sanction or objection, if any, are not communicated within the period of 60 days the plans shall be deemed to have been sanctioned provided that they do not contravene the provisions of the Building Regulations and the requirements of the Controlled Area. No formal sanction of the plans has been given by the L.D.A. And it is claimed on behalf of the L.D.A. That on 16-9-1985 i.e. About a week before the expiry of 60 days certain objections to the building plans were conveyed to the respondents. The respondents, on the other hand, claim that no such objections were received by them within the given time and that, in any case, the objections were frivolous. The L.D.A. Gave notices to the respondents on. 13th October, 1985 and on 2nd November, 1985 asking the respondents not to proceed with the construction. This impelled the respondents to bring a suit for seeking a permanent injunction against the L. D . A .
Against interfering with their building plans. It was claimed in the suit that under regulation No.1Q the plans submitted by the respondents /plaintiffs are deemed to have been sanctioned and that, in any case, the plans were not in violation of the Building Regulations or requirements of the Controlled Area. Alongwith the suit an application for temporary injunction was moved. A notice was given to the L . D . A . For 3-11-1985. The L. D . A . Was served and they actually appeared on the relevant date but on account of lack of time were not able to file a reply to the application or written statement in the main suit. The trial Court on 3-11-1985 directed the L.D.A. Not to interfere with the constructions until the next date of hearing and fixed the case for 10-11-1985 for submission of the reply to the application and of the written statement in the main suit. On 7-11-1985 the suit was transferred by the orders of the learned District Judge to the Court of Mr. Khalid Shabbir, Civil Judge on account of the fact that two earlier suits relating to the same property were pending in the Court of Mr. Khalid Shabbir. On 10-11-1985 for which date the case had been fixed by the order of Mr. Tahir Pervaiz, Civil Judge, Mr. Khalid Shabbir was on leave. The case was entrusted to Mr. Ghulam Sarwar, Civil Judge, who was acting as a duty Judge. No reply was filed even on that date.
He adjourned the case to 20-11-1985 and extended the interim order till that date. On 11-11-1985 the L.D.A. Challenged the orders of 3-11-1985 in appeal before an Additional District Judge. The learned Additional District Judge suspended the orders of the trial Court by an order, dated 11-11-1985 and subsequently on the application of the respondents of the same date he modified the orders and directed that status quo be maintained. The main appeal came up before the learned Additional District Judge on 18-11-1985. By the orders of the same date the learned Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal and left the matter of confirmation or non-confirmation of the orders, dated 3-11-1985 to the trial Court after the reply or written statement came up before him. The written statement has since been filed on 20-11-1985 and the case is now fixed before the trial Court for 7- 12-1985. The L.D.A., however, have moved the present petition seeking revision of the orders of the trial Court and that of the appellate Court of 3-11-1985 and 18-11-1985.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel for the respondents have addressed arguments dealing with the merits of the case and also whether the building plans complied with the Building Regulations and whether the objections raised by the L.D.A. Were conveyed within time and whether they were frivolous, but I do not consider it proper to comment on them at this stage as it is likely to prejudice the suit which is pending before the learned Civil Judge at Lahore. All these questions can be adjudicated upon at the proper time by the trial Court.
The only question which can be discussed at this stage is whether interim orders passed by the trial Court on 3-11-1985 restraining the L. D . A . From interfering with the construction of the property until the next date of hearing called for interference in the present proceedings or not. It is obvious that the question whether the orders, dated 3-11-1985 are to be confirmed or not is still open and in fact the appellate Court has directed the trial Court to do so after reply and written statement has come before him. As observed above, the written statement was filed two days after the orders of the appellate Court. The trial Court is now fully equipped to determine the question of confirmation or non-confirmation of the orders of 3-11-1985. The case is now fixed for 7-12-1985 which is only five days away. Under these circumstances whether any order should be passed by this Court, recalling the orders of 3-11-1985 or modifying them, has come up for considerable consideration.
4. The learned counsel for the L.D.A. Has argued that the orders deserve to be modified, if not recalled, for the reason that if the construction is permitted to go on it will create complications for the L . D . A . Even though it is not denied that the L . D . A . Enjoy powers of even demolishing structures which are found to be illegally raised. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has argued that the matter be left for determination by .The trial Court as any observation, one way or the other, is likely to prejudice the case before the trial Court. He has stated that if any illegal structure is raised in the meantime the risk is entirely that of the respondents and the I.D.A. Will suffer no loss as they have the powers to demolish any illegal structure.
5. After considering the arguments of the learned counsel I deem it proper to leave the matter entirely to the trial Court which is to pass orders regarding confirmation or non-confirmation of its orders, dated 3-11-1985 after a period of five days from now. The revision petition is disposed of with these observations. There shall be no order as to costs.