Suit No.772 of 1995
2. In this case, plaintiff No. 1 had booked an apartment bearing No. 6 at first floor while plaintiff No. 2 booked an apartment bearing No. 24 at third floor in Asma Arcade, constructed on Plot No. 217, Manikji Street, Garden East, Karachi. This project is being raised by defendants Nos. 2 to 6. The remaining defendants i.e. 7 to 14 are also owners of different flats in the said project. The case of the plaintiffs is that the defendant No. 1 in collusion with defendants Nos. 2 to 6 allowed the raising of construction beyond approved plan, which resulted in completion of the project; that the building is almost complete and is at the final stage; that the plaintiffs also hold registered Indenture of Sub-Lease which are, dated October, 1955 and, therefore, it is claimed that they are the lawful and bona fide owners. Therefore, they filed this suit for declaration and injunction seeking declaration' that the demolition of the said building by K.B.C.A. Be declared to be mala fide and discriminatory and are also seeking perpetual injunction restraining defendants from demolishing the same. In this suit plaintiffs have filed Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 5708 of 1995 under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. Seeking interim injunction against defendant No. 1 restraining them from demolishing the building on the suit property. The case of the K.B.C.A. Is that the apartments booked by the plaintiffs are result of unauthorised construction which was withdrawn by the K.B.C.A on account of serious irregularities and deviations committed by the builders/owners; that on 5th June, 1995 a show-cause notice under section 7(A) of the Ordinance, 1979 was issued but the owners/builders continued raising illegal and unauthorised construction. Therefore, on 15th June, 1995 approved building plan was withdrawn by K.B.C.A.; that the plaintiff filed a Suit bearing No. 611 of 1995 and got suspended the order of withdrawal of building plan from the Court of learned VII th Senior Civil Judge, Karachi (East). It is further case of the K.B.C.A. That they adopted all available measures to stop the illegal construction work and obtained assistance from the Office of Commissioner, Karachi, Deputy Commissioner, Karachi (East), S.D.M., Jamshed Quarters, Karachi and of Police Station Soldier Bazar, Karachi, but after passing of order in Suit No. 611 of 1995 all the efforts of K.B.C.A. Went in vain. It is further pleaded that the suit is barred under sections 16, 20 and 20(a) of the Ordinance, 1979. Case of the defendants Nos. 2 to 6, who are the builders is that since in the vicinity there were several buildings constructed or were under construction which were multi-storeyed in nature, therefore, they also raised the building in question. However, they have not stated anything about the approved plan. They have denied collusion with defendant No. 1 K.B.C.A. Defendants Nos. 14 to 17, who are also owners of other flats and shops in this project have supported the case of plaintiffs.
3. Plaintiff in this suit claims to be the owner of a shop in Mumtaz Arcade, ground. Floor on Plot No.106-A, Block No.2, P. E. C. H. S., Karachi and holds registered Indenture of sub-lease, dated 22-7- 1995. This project was constructed by defendants Nos. 2 and 3. The case of the plaintiff is that he has purchased the shop in question after making full payment and which was subsequently transferred in his name; that inaction on the part of defendant No. 1, for not taking any action against the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 in raising construction beyond approved building plan has resulted in creation of vested right. He has filed this suit for declaration that the sealing of shop by defendant No. 1, be declared to be illegal and unauthorised and is also seeking perpetual injunction against the defendant No. 1, from sealing the said shop. Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 1275 of 1996 is filed by the plaintiff seeking interim injunction in terms of the aforesaid main relief pertaining to the perpetual injunction. In the counter-affidavit filed by defendant No. 1 /K.B.C.A., it is averred that the building plan was approved on 12-1-1995 for ground plus 2 upper floors but the builders started construction beyond approved plan. Therefore, a notice under section 7-A of the Ordinance, 1979 was issued; that in response to such notice defendants Nos. 2 and 3 filed a civil suit bearing No. 396 of 1995 in the Court of VII th Senior Civil Judge, Karachi East, and after obtaining order of status quo completed the construction beyond approved building plan. K.B.C:A. Has prayed for dismissal of this stay application. On 3-3-1997 when the aforesaid facts were brought to the knowledge of this Court, file of Suit No. 395 of 1995 was summoned and was perused. It appears that the suit was filed in the Court of VIth Senior Civil Judge. Karachi East, on 13-4-1995. Notice was issued to K.B.C.A. For 16-4-1995 when on that day one Advocate appeared on behalf of K.B.C.A.. And filed application under section 148, C.P.C. Seeking time to file counter-affidavit. This application was granted and in the meantime "parties were directed to maintain status quo". It was under such circumstances that the builder completed the project and K.B.C.A. Did not take any action against the builders in presence of the order of status quo. It is pertinent to note that in para. 13 of the plaint, filed before the Court of VIth Senior Civil Judge, the suit was valued at Rs. 400 for declaration and at Rs. 200 for permanent injunction, but despite that the learned Senior Civil Judge vide his order dated 12-7-1995, (which is available at pages 185-187 of the R. & Ps.) granted extension of IS days' time to the K.B.C.A. To submit approved building plan on the consideration, inter alia, that the plaintiff has spent lacs of rupees on this project nevertheless learned Civil Judge permitted the plaintiff to value the said suit at Rs. 400 Suit No. 314 of 1996
4. The plaintiffs who are 13 in number have purchased Duplex Apartments in Madni Heights, constructed on Plot bearing No. J.M. 190, Main Britto Road, Jamshed Quarters, Karachi. The allotment letters have been filed as Annexures P-1 to P-13 with the plaint and are, dated January, 1996. It is claimed by the plaintiffs that they are in physical possession of their respective premises; that on 9-4-1996, the defendant's officials visited the flats and attempts were made by them to damage the same; that the defendants also attempted to seal the premises, Plaintiffs have filed Annexures P-35 and P-36 with the plaint in order to show that the construction has been fully raised but perusal of the same shows that it is still unoccupied. It is the case of the plaintiff that they have invested substantial amount and that they are the bona fide purchasers; that the acts of the defendant to seal and efforts to damage the premises are highly illegal and mala fide. They have filed this suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs are entitled to the property in Madni Heights constructed on Plot No. J.M-190, Main Britto Road, Jamshed Quarters, Karachi. They have also prayed for perpetual injunction restraining defendants from causing damage to the suit properties and from dispossessing the plaintiffs from their respective premises. The case of K.B.C.A.
Is that on 20th September, 1995, building plan was approved for ground + 3 floors with 1 /3 covered area and compulsory open spaces as per rules, but it was found that the builders are raising unauthorised anal illegal construction; therefore, on 14-11-1995 notices were served under section 16 of the Ordinance, 1979 with the direction to the builders to remove unauthorised construction but the builders filed Suit No. 1183 of 1995 and obtained order of status quo from the Court of VIth Senior Civil Judge, Karachi East; that the builders have constructed structure up to 5 floors after obtaining order of status quo and in violation of approved building plan. Thus, plaintiffs have filed an application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. Bearing No. 2131 of 1996.
Suit No. 315 of 1996
5. In this case, there are fifteen (15) plaintiffs, who all booked different flats in POONAWALA HOMES, constructed on Plot No. JM-665, Fatima Jinnah Colony, Jamshed Quarters, Karachi. In support, they have filed copies of allotment orders and possession letters which indicate that the physical possession of the flats in question were delivered to the plaintiffs during the period January, 1996 to February, 1997. They have also filed photographs of the project as Annexures P/35 and P/36 with the plaint in order to show that the project is fully completed. Their grievance is that on 9th April, 1996, K.B.C.A. Officials visited the flats' site and attempted to demolish the construction as well as to seal their respective premises. With this background they have filed this suit for declaration that the acts of defendant to demolish and sealing of the premises be declared to be detrimental to their interest with the further prayer for perpetual injunction against defendant restraining them from demolishing and/or damaging the project or in any manner evicting the plaintiffs from their respective possession. Defendant K.B.C.A. Has filed its counter-affidavit as well as written statement in which it is stated that the building plan was approved on 7th December, 1995 for ground plus three upper storeys with the provision of 1/3 covered area and compulsory open spaces.
Subsequently, on 12-12-1995 it was found that the builders were raising unauthorised construction; therefore, notices were issued to them. It is further case of the defendant that the builders filed two suits bearing Suits Nos. 12 of 1996 and 118 of 1996 in this Court and obtained stay order and raised the construction structure up to ground plus five (5) storeys. It is further stated that the builders have withdrawn the above suits but the Constitutional Petition bearing Constitutional Petition No. D-271 of 1996 is pending before a Division Bench of this Court, filed by Messrs Shehri C.D.E. It is the case of the defendant K.B.C.A. That the construction raised on the suit premises is in violation of the approved building plan and any construction raised in violation of building plan is liable to be removed. It is pertinent to note that the plaintiffs have not impleaded the builders of the project in this suit and are merely seeking interim injunction and declaration against the Karachi Building Control Authority.
6. Case file of Suit No. 12 of 1996 (Mst. Hajra Bai and others v. KBCA) and the case file of Suit No. 118 of 1996, which was also between the same parties, were summoned and perused by this Court. In Suit No. 12 of 1996, the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, seeking a negative declaration to the effect that the acts of the defendants in interfering with the construction work be declared to be illegal and unauthorised; that the notice, dated 24th December, 1995 be cancelled.
Permanent injunction was also sought restraining the defendants from interfering in the construction work, which was being carried out according to the approved plan. The suit came up for hearing on 16-1-1996 when it was observed by this Court that the K.B.C.A. Have demolished some portion of the construction and are threatening to demolish the remaining construction.
However, no injunction was issued. On 18-1-1996, after due notice to the K.B.C.A. It was restrained from taking any action with regard to the construction which is according to the approved plan.
Subsequently, on 3-4-1996 this suit was withdrawn by the consent of both the parties. In another case, Suit No. 118 of 1996, the builders/owners had filed that suit on 13-2-1996 seeking declaration to the extent that the K.B.C.A. Has no right or authority to demolish the construction so far raised without giving the plaintiff an opportunity of hearing. Relief of perpetual injunction was also sought restraining defendants from demolishing any portion constructed on the suit premises. On 14-2- 1996 ad interim injunction as prayed was granted. This suit was also withdrawn on 3-4-1996 by consent of the parties.
Suits Nos. 818 and 819 of 1996 7'. In both these suits some sixteen (16) plaintiffs are claiming ownership of flats in the project known as 'Bilal Garden', constructed on Plot No. 66/3, Sheet No. G.R.W., admeasuring 214 square yards, Block A, Lal Odho Mal Street, Off Ghulam Hussain Kassim Road, Garden West, Karachi. They have filed copies of indentures of sub-lease, which are all dated June, 1995 to June, 1996. They have also filed photo copies of bills of Sui Southern Gas Company and telephone bills in order to show that they are in physical possession of their respective flats. It is the case of the plaintiff that they being laymen were not aware of the facts on which the building was being constructed and that they have purchased the same after investing substantial amount from their life earnings; that the builders in collusion with the defendant permitted the project to be completed in violation of the approved plan; that on 28th August, 1996, the defendant started demolishing other buildings constructed within the area of Garden West and on the same day officials of defendant also visited the plaintiffs site; that the defendants have demolished building constructed on Plot No. 151, Plot No. 61 and Plot No. 137/3, Garden West, Karachi without notice and, therefore, the plaintiffs apprehend demolition of the same. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that the defendant cannot demolish the building known as Bilal Garden without adopting due course of law i.e. Serving notice to the plaintiffs and other occupants and unless opportunity of hearing is extended to the plaintiffs. With this background they have filed suit for declaration that the plaintiffs be declared to be lawful owner of the different flats in project known as Bilal Garden. They are also seeking perpetual injunction against defendant restraining them from forcibly demolishing building known as Bilal Garden, without adopting legal procedure. In this case the K.B.C.A. Was debarred from filing their written statement and till this date neither any counter-affidavit nor any opposition was filed to the plaintiffs' application under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. (CMA-4373/96). The plaintiffs have filed suit against K.B.C.A. But have not impleaded builders as one of the defendants, against whom several allegations of serious nature were levelled by the plaintiffs.
Suit No. 832 of 1996
8. There are five plaintiffs who have obtained flats in "Saleem Terrace" constructed on GR. W.93, Garden West, Karachi from one Muhammad Saleem s/o Haji Usman, who is builder of this project and who was not impleaded as co---defendant by the plaintiffs. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they have booked different flats in the said project which now stands completed and that the physical possession of their respective flats were also delivered to them. In support, they have filed photo copies of the Indenture of lease duly registered during the month of October, 1995. They have also filed photo copies of Challan Forms from G. Division, Assessing Authority of Urban Immovable Property Tax, to show that the flats were fully constructed and that the property tax is being levied.
They have also filed telephone bills and provisional challans from Water and Sewerage Departments. Plaintiffs have filed this suit for declaration that they may be declared owners of their respective flats with other relief of prohibitory injunction against the defendant/K.B.C.A. Restraining them from evicting the plaintiffs, demolishing the project without adopting legal procedure. They have also filed application for interim relief of prohibitory injunction under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. (CMA-4578/96). The case of the defendant/KBCA is that initially the building plan for the suit premises approved on 27-7-1987, was for ground first floor and that the said approval plan lapsed as the construction was not raised within one year; that the builder started excavation of foundation and construction in compulsory open space; that notices were issued to the builders; that the builder filed two Suits bearing Nos. 2 and 3 of 1993 and obtained order of status quo from the Court of VIth Senior Civil Judge, South; that despite order of status quo builder raised illegal and unauthorised construction up to the 6th floor; that the construction was sealed and against that action builder filed third Suit No. 888 of 1996 and again obtained order of status quo; that the physical possession was handed over to the plaintiffs in total disregard of the provisions of the Ordinance, 1979; that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any protection of law and, therefore, the suit as well as miscellaneous applications are liable to be dismissed.
Suit No. 833 of 1996
9. In this case some 20 plaintiffs have filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of residential project namely 'Ana Castle' constructed on Plot No. 81, Garden West, Karachi. They have claimed in the plaint that they are lawful and bona fide owners/purchasers of different flats in the said project. Although it is alleged that the sub-lease has been executed and registered before the Registrar T. Division, VI-B, Karachi but no copies of such sub-lease were produced till hearing of this application. Plaintiffs have filed receipts issued by the said office of Sub-Registrar. They have also filed undated copies of notices on Form PT-XIII, issued by the Urban Immovable Property Tax Department, Sindh at Karachi and contended that they are in physical possession of the same. The prayers in this suit are the same as of Suit No. 833 of 1996. The case of the defendant/KBCA as per their written statement is that the suit is barred for want of notice under section 20-A of the Ordinance, 1979; that the suit is barred for non-joinder of the necessary party i.e. Builder; that no cause of action is available to the plaintiffs; that the building plan for the suit premises was approved for ground + one for residential purpose but when it was found that the builder is violating the approved building plan a notice was issued to the builder on 12-4-1995; that the builder filed a Suit No. 191 of 1996 and obtained order of status quo from this Court and after violating order of status quo they raised construction up to the level of 6th floor; that it is a collusive suit filed by the so-called owners at the behest of the builders. It was prayed that the suit be dismissed as well as instant application Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 4579 of 1996 be also rejected.
Suit No. 862 of 1996
10. There are two plaintiffs in this suit who have booked two apartments in Lakhani Towers, constructed on Plot No. 258, Lobo Street, Garden West, Karachi. The case of the plaintiffs is that the construction work in the project had been virtually completed; that the location of Lakhani Towers attracted to the plaintiffs and, therefore, they acquired flats in the same; that they were informed that the Chief Minister of Sindh had granted permission to the builder to raise construction for ground + 7 floors; (they impleaded builder as defendant No. 2) that after being satisfied with the statements of defendant No. 2, they paid necessary consideration for purchase of the flats; that the plaintiffs have invested substantial amount and are in physical possession of these two flats from 16-3-1996, that they are enjoying gas connection, electricity and water for which they have field different copies of receipts from respective departments. Plaintiffs have prayed for the declaration that the order dated 16-6-1996 passed by the defendant No. 1, namely, K.B.C.A. Be declared mala fide and without lawful authority.
Suits Nos. 865 and 949 of 1996
11. In both these suits there are some thirty-three (33) plaintiffs in total, who are claiming to be the bona fide and lawful purchasers of the flats and shops in the project called as Sana Arcade, situated on 17-GR-1, Ghulam Hussain Kassim Road, Garden West, Karachi. In support, they have filed copies of registered Indentures of sub-lease, which appear to have been registered in the month of September, 1996. They have also filed photographs alongwith the plaint in order to show that Sana Arcade is fully occupied by the plaintiffs. Their case is that the plaintiffs being laymen are not aware of the technical and legal intricacies of the matter and that after investing substantial amount from their life savings they have obtained these flats/shops; that the defendant in collusion with the builders have completed the construction of the project; that the plaintiffs apprehend demolition of the project at the hands of defendant/KBCA in collusion with the builders and that such act is violative of their fundamental rights as guaranteed in the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, They have prayed that the acts of the K.B.C.A. To demolish the project in question be declared to be illegal, mala fide and bad in law. They have also prayed for perpetual injunction against the defendant and its subordinate restraining them from demolishing the said project or from ejecting the plaintiffs. It is pertinent to note that despite serious allegations of fraud and mala fides against the builders, they were not impleaded as defendants.
12. The case of the defendant/KBCA is that the building plan was initially approved for ground plus first floor as residential unit but the builders/owners violated the approved plan and raised the construction up to six storeys by covering compulsory open space; that notice was issued to the builders under the provisions of the Ordinance, 1979, against which they filed a suit bearing Suit No. 1231 of 1995 and obtained order of status quo from the Court of VIIIth Senior Civil Judge, Karachi (East). It is the further case of the defendant/KBCA that since the order of status quo was being violated by the builders, the suit premises was sealed on 1st February, 1996 but the builders again obtained fresh order of status quo from this Court in Suit No. 99 of 1996. They defendant has prayed for rejection of stay application as Sana Arcade was constructed in violation of approved building plan and under the garb of order of status quo.
Suit No. 911 of 1996
13. Some six plaintiffs have filed this suit claiming to have purchased flats in the project known as 'Chapal Gardens' constructed on main Abul Hasan Isphahani Road, Sector-12, Scheme 33, Gulzar- e-Hijri, Karachi, in pursuance of advertisements which appeared in the daily ' Jang', daily ' Qoumi Akhbar,' and daily 'Dawn', Karachi. They have annexed eight copies of advertisements with the plaint. They have impleaded the builder of the aforesaid project as defendant No. 2, who is being represented by Mr. Aziz Malik. It is the case of plaintiffs that from the period of January, 1993 till the date of filing of suit they have invested substantial amount in obtaining flats in the said project.
Controversy in this suit began on 21-3-1996 when the plaintiff alongwith other allottees of the flat noted presence of the Official Assignee at the project site. They were informed that the Official Assignee was visiting the suit premises in pursuance of the order of this Court in Suit No.197 of 1995.
It was under such circumstances as alleged in the plaint that the plaintiffs came to know that the construction being raised on the suit premises was not in accordance with the approved building plan, although they have asserted that the deviation from the said building plan was minor in nature and extends to one percent of the total area of construction. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that the defendant No. 2 have constructed major portion of the project and they being bona fide purchaser against valuable consideration are entitled for protection of their rights, therefore, they have prayed for the relief that the action of defendant No. 1, in cancelling No- Objection Certificate, in respect of the project be declared to be void and of no legal effect. They have also prayed for perpetual injunction against the defendant No. 1, from taking any adverse action in respect of the construction. They have filed Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 4725 of 1996 for seeking interim injunction against the K.B.C.A. In the same terms as of perpetual injunction.
14. The case of the K.B.C.A. Is that the project 'Chapal Gardens' was approved for ground + 4 floors with shops and flats and in 8 blocks, vide order dated 21-12-1992; that the defendant No. 2 started raising construction on the project, illegally and unauthorisedly by covering compulsory open spaces and by raising construction beyond approved plan. Accordingly as claimed, notice was issued by the K.B.C.A. To the builders, who approached this Court through Suit No.197 of 1995 (Chapal Garden v. KBCA) and obtained order of status quo. It is further alleged by the K.B.C.A. That the instant case is collusively filed by the plaintiffs at the instance of defendant No. 1, i.e. Builders.
K.B.C.A. Has also challenged locus standi of the plaintiffs to file suit and to claim their rights as owner of their respective units in the project in question. They have prayed for dismissal of application bearing Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 4725 of 1996. The case file of Suit No. 197 of 1995 was summoned and perused. Its perusal indicates that on 21-3-1995 an ad interim injunction was granted as prayed which remained in operation till 22-3-1996 when a statement was made by Mr. Aziz Malik, Advocate that the plaintiff of that suit will raise construction according to the approved building plan. On 12-9-1996, the injunction application was dismissed as nobody was present on behalf of the plaintiff. However, on 15-9-1996, upon fresh application filed by the plaintiff of Suit No.197 of 1995 order of status quo was passed directing all the parties to the suit to maintain status quo.
Suit No. 934 of 1996
15. This suit pertains to the project ' Iqbal Arcade' built on Survey No. 570, Garden East, Karachi. The five plaintiffs claim to be the lawful owners of different flats on 1st to 4th floors. It is their case that they are in physical occupation of their respective flats since 21-12-1995; that they are also consuming electricity, gas and water in their respective premises; that under the impression that the building was being raised according to the approved plan, they have booked their respective flats; that on 10-7-1996 officials of K.B.C.A. Visited the flat site and threatened the plaintiffs for demolition of the project; that on 11-2-1996 when the plaintiffs visited the office of K.B.C.A., they were informed that the buildings are being demolished by the K.B.C.A. Constructed in their vicinity; that the plaintiffs were shocked to know that the defendant/KBCA had already demolished unauthorised construction of Plots Nos. 151, 61 and 137/3, Garden West, Karachi. The plaintiffs have pleaded ignorance and good faith in acquiring these flats. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that the defendant/KBCA without adopting legal procedure laid down under the law, rules and regulations is attempting to demolish the building/project in collusion with the builders; that the intention of the K.B.C.A. To dispossess/eject the plaintiffs for premises is also illegal and highly mala fide. They have prayed for declaration that they are the owners of their respective flats and that the acts of the defendant/KBCA in demolishing the construction or their dispossession from the suit premises is illegal and mala fide. Alongwith the suit, they have also filed Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 4937 of 1996 seeking interim injunction against the defendant/KBCA.
16. The case of the K.B.C.A., in addition to the legal objections as mentioned in the earlier part of this order is that initially the building plan was approved for ground + 1st floor only, sometime in the year 1994. But when the builders were found raising construction in violation of the building plan, action for demolition was initiated accordingly with the assistance of the local administration and the premises in question was also sealed. It is denied that the plaintiffs are in occupation of any of the flats. They have prayed for dismissal of the suit as well as of the instant application.
Suit No.1139 of 1996.
17. There are some 16 plaintiffs in this case who have filed a common suit for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunctions against the K.B.C.A. As well as builders namely Lakhani Construction Company. All these plaintiffs have claimed to be owners of different apartments in Lakhani Towers situated on Plot No. 258, Lobo Street, Garden West, Karachi. Their case is that in the year 1993 they booked different apartments in the said project and have invested lacs of rupees. In support of this plea, they have filed copies of application forms and copy of brochure which shows that the project ' Lakhani Towers' comprises of 2-3 bed-rooms and is ground + 7 floors. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that some time in the month of April, physical possession of the premises were delivered to them for which they have filed copies of Annexures E/1 to E/16. To further support their contention that they are in physical possession of the same, they have also filed copies of notices on Form P.T. 13 issued under the Urban Immovable Property Tax Ordinance, 1958 demanding property tax from them. Their grievance is that on 16-6-1996 several premises in the Lakhani Towers were sealed by the K.B.C.A. Under section 7-A of the Ordinance, 1997, except those premises which were having gas meters. This act of the defendant No. l, has been challenged in this suit. The case of the defendant/KBCA is that the building plan was approved was for ground + first floor which was in the year 1990 and that the owner/builders after obtaining order of status quo from the Court of law raised the building up to the height of 7 floors. It is further claimed that in Suit No. 764 of 1996 the builders obtained order of status quo from the Court of VIth Senior Civil Judge Karachi, East, Reference was also made to Suit No. 862 of 1996 (Bilquees Usman and others v. K.B.C.A. And others). On 5-9-1996, ad interim injunction was granted in that suit by this Court against the K.B.C.A. From interfering with the physical possession of the premises or causing damage to the suit property. However, K.B.C.A. Was not restrained from -taking lawful action against the builders for illegal construction. In this background, plaintiffs have filed this suit for declaration that the sealing of premises by K.B.C.A. Be declared to be mala fide and without lawful authority with perpetual injunction against the K.B.C.A., restraining them from interfering in the amenities and physical possession being enjoyed by them in respect of the suit property. Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 6383 of 1996 has been filed by the plaintiffs seeking interim injunction in the said terms.
Suit No.1158 of 1996
18. This suit pertains to Metro Garden constructed on Plot No. GRE-216, Manikji Street, Garden Quarters, Karachi. As of earlier suit, all the 9 plaintiffs in the instant suit have pleaded their innocence and good faith. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that they have acquired physical possession of the project in question in the month of August, 1996 for which they have filed copies of sub--lease alongwith the plaint; that they are residing in these flats and are paying electricity, gas, water and other conservancy charges to the concerned departments; that on 8-9-1996 officials of defendant K.B.C.A. Visited the site and threatened the plaintiffs with demolition of the building. The further case of the plaintiffs is the same as of the plaintiffs in Suit No. 934 of 1996. In the instant suit the defence of the K.B.C.A. Is identical as of the earlier mentioned suit. In this case, initially the plan approved was for ground + 1st floor for residential bungalows but contrary to that the construction of a commercial building was done by the builders after obtaining order of status quo from the Civil Court. It is denied by the K.B.C.A. That the plaintiffs are in physical possession of the premises as the same was attached by the SDM and nobody was found to be in possession of the same. It is pleaded that the K.B.C.A. Wants to p.I down and remove unauthorised and illegal construction; that the instant suit is collusive proceedings filed by the plaintiffs on the instructions of the builders; that the suit is without cause of action and, therefore, it is prayed that the suit as well as interlocutory application may be dismissed.
19. With this, I have come to the conclusion of narration of the facts of each case. Now, I will discuss the case of the parties on the point of grant or refusal of interim injunction. On 24-11-1996, while hearing applications for interim injunctions filed under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C., by the plaintiff in Suit No.1158 of 1996, two issues were framed, whereafter office was directed to fix all such cases where in similar circumstances suits were filed by the al lottees/purchasers of different flats and shops and were seeking interim injunction against K.B.C.A. Parties in all those cases were also put under notice. Following are the two points:
(i) Whether a builder is legally competent and authorised to deliver physical possession of a flat to an allottee or purchaser in view of the prohibition appearing in subsection (2) to section 6 of the Sindh Building Control Ordinance, 1979, without first complying the same.
(ii) What is the legal consequence of delivery of physical possession or execution and registration of sub-lease in violation of section 6(2) of Sindh Building Control Ordinance, 1979.
20. It was argued on behalf of the plaintiffs that they being innocent citizens have invested their life savings in purchase of suit premises and, therefore, they are bona fide purchasers. This argument was further pressed on the ground that the officials of K.B.C.A. And builders have acted in collusion which resulted in purchase of these suit premises by the plaintiffs. It was submitted that in many cases, the plaintiffs are holding registered sub-lease in their favour and, therefore, they are not liable to be dispossessed from the suit premises so far as their title subsists. It was strenuously argued that such sub--lease or any contract, written or implied, is not hit by the provisions of section 23 of the Contract Act, 1872. Reliance was also placed on section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. In alternate, it was argued that there is a provision for imposing penalty in case of any deviation or violation of the approved building plan and, therefore, the K.B.C.A. Can seek imposition of such penalties through the forum provided under the Ordinance, 1979. It was additionally submitted that in the city of Karachi there are other illegal and unauthorised constructions for which no action was taken by the K.B.C.A. Or which were subsequently regularised and, therefore, it was argued that any action against the present plaintiff will amount to discrimination which would be violative of Article 25 of the Constitution, 1973. Mr. Partab R.I has referred to the cases Karachi Catolic Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. v. Mirza Jawad Baig (PLD 1994 Kar. 194) and Mansoor v. Tassadaq Ahmed Khan and 27 others (PLD 1995 Karachi 197). Mr. Neil Keshav, in addition to what Mr. Partab R.I has relied, referred to the case Federation of Pakistan v.
Public-at---Large (1988 SCMR 2041). Mr. Munir A. Malik and Mr. Meraj Ahmed have also argued the same points on behalf of plaintiffs.
21. Mr. Aziz Malik, Advocate who has appeared for defendants/builders has supported the case of plaintiffs. It was argued by him that the provisions of section 23 of the Contract Act is no bar to the sub-lease executed between the builders and the allottees. Reliance was placed on Regulations 20 and 26 of the Building Regulations. He has further argued that there is no specific prohibition in the Sindh Building Control Ordinance, 1979 prohibiting execution of sub--lease between the owners and the builders or that if such agreement is executed, it would be illegal and void and, therefore, it was further argued that section 23 of the Contract Act does not come into play. He has also referred to the cases Muhammad Amin v. Karachi Building Control Authority (1992 CLC 691) and Noor Muhammad and another v. Building Control Authority and 2 others (1992 CLC 729).
22. On behalf of K.B.C.A., Mr. Sabir Hussain Kizilbash, Mr. Iqbal Memon and Mrs. Zahida Naqvi, Advocates have argued. Their main stress was on the point that since the buildings in question were raised and constructed in violation of the approved plan, the plaintiffs are not entitled to relief of prohibitory injunction; that the plaintiffs have not come with clean hands and are in collusion with the builders; that in several cases, the builders were not impleaded as defendants; that the plaints are liable to be rejected as no mandatory notices were issued by the plaintiffs as provided under section 20(9) of the Ordinance, 1979; that any allotment or delivery for possession in violation of section 6 or 12 is illegal and void. Mr. Naimur Rehman, Advocate who has appeared in two suits on behalf of intervener, namely, Shehri has supported the case of K.B.C.A. And contended that in several suits buildings have neither been completed nor any completion certificate has been issued and, therefore, delivery of possession or execution of any document is violative of the provisions of the Ordinance, 1979. He has pointed out that in Suit No. 865 of 1996 the regularisation plan was rejected by the K.B.C.A. Vide its order dated 16-5-1996. He has placed reliance on the case of Mst. Sardar Begum Farooqi and 6 others v. Rashida Khatoon and 2 others (1990 CLC 83) and the case of Abdul Razzak v. Karachi Building Control Authority and others (PLD 1994 SC 512).
23. In order to appreciate the arguments of all the parties, it would be advantageous to reproduce the relevant provisions of Sindh Building Control, Ordinance, 1979 as well as section 23 of the Contract Act, 1872:-- Relevant Provisions of Sindh Buildings Control Ordinance, 1979.
"6. Approval of plan:--(1) No building shall be constructed before the Authority has, in the prescribed manner, approved the plan of such building and granted no-objection certificate for the construction therefore, on payment of such fee as may be prescribed.
(2) No building mentioned in subsection (1) shall be occupied by any persons or shall be allowed by the builder to be occupied, before the Authority has, on application of the occupant or owner, issued occupancy certificate, in such manner as may be prescribed.
7-A. Violation of certain provisions.--Where the provisions of sub--section (1) of section 6 are violated the building may without prejudice to any other action including sealing of the building or ejectment of the occupants be ordered by the Authority or any officer of the Authority authorized in this behalf to be demolished, at the cost of the builder in the case of public buildings and the owner in other cases.
12. Sale of buildings.--(1) No builder shall sell or advertise for sale any buildings, through any audiovisual aids or any other means before he has obtained approval in writing of the Authority, and he shall mention such fact in the advertisement which will further specify all such details about the building as may be prescribed.
(2) The approval granted by the Authority under subsection (1) shall be displayed at a conspicuous place in the office of the builder, if any, and at the site of the building.
(3) The builder shall not entertain and register any application made in response to the advertisement under subsection (1), if it is in excess of the number of housing units provided in the building.
19. Penalty.--(1) Whoever contravenes any provisions of this Ordinance, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a terms not exceeding if the offence is a continuing one, further fine not exceeding five hundred rupees for each day after the date of the first commission of the offence.
(1-A) The Authority or any person authorised by it in this behalf may compound any offence under this Ordinance or such terms and conditions as may be prescribed: Provided that no offence relating to building works commenced or carried out in violation of the approved plans shall be compounded.
Section 23 of the contract Act
23. What considerations and objects are lawful and what note.--The consideration or object of an agreement is lawful, unless.--it is forbidden by law; or is of such a nature that, if permitted, it would defeat the provisions of any law; or is fraudulent; or involves or implies injury to the person or property of another; or the Court regards it as immoral, or opposed to public policy.
Every agreement of which the object or consideration is unlawful is void. "
(Emphasis added.)
24. One of the first objections raised by the plaintiffs was that since the defendants have not pleaded illegality of the contract entered between the plaintiff and the builders the same cannot be considered at this interlocutory stage. I am of the view that this objection is not sustainable on the grounds, firstly, that this question was framed by the Court itself and, secondly, that the plaintiffs have based their claim on this agreement through which they are claiming their ownership in the suit premises and have prayed for interim injunction against the K.B.C.A. It is this contract which determines their status and entitlement to the suit property. Therefore, it does not matter whether the defendants have pleaded the illegality or not. (If any reference is needed, see the cases of Sewsagar Avasty v. Satyanarain Sah and others (AIR 1960 Patna 145) and Sita Ram v.
Kunj Lal (AIR 1963 Allahabad 206). In support of their case, reliance was placed by the plaintiffs on the case of Karachi Catholic Cooperative Housing Society Limited (PLD 1994 Karachi 194) where a learned Division Bench of this Court while considering the implication of section 202 of the Contract Act and section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, held that the change of possession of the suit property is, in fact, an act of part performance which admittedly creates a legal right in favour of the persons to whom the property was transferred. In that case the question for consideration was whether a property transferred on the basis of a general power of attorney, transfers the title to the purchaser. In the instant case the question of transfer of property between a transferor and a transferee is not involved as the plaintiffs are not seeking any relief against the builder/seller but they are claiming their right against the K.B.C.A. On the basis of an agreement entered between them on the one hand and the builders on the other hand. Reliance was also placed on the case of Mansoor v. Tassaddaq Ahmed Khan and 27 others (PLD 1995 Karachi 197) which again involves question of applicability of section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The rule laid down by a learned Division Bench in that, case is of no help to the plaintiffs. Mr. Neil Keshav, learned counsel for the plaintiffs, has placed reliance on the case of Federation of Pakistan 1988 SCMR 2041 where several provisions of Contract Act were interpreted by the Shariat Appellate Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, when it was observed that while framing section 23 of the Contract Act, the Injunctions of Islam were not kept in view. It was held that there may be such contracts which though are not contrary to the provisions of section 23 but are against Injunctions of Quran and Sunnah. The Federal Government was directed to amend this section by 15-2-1989. It is pertinent to note that section 23 of Contract Act was not declared to be repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam.
The Federal Government was directed to make amendments in section 23 whereby all such agreements which though qualified to have a lawful consideration should also be treated to be void, if found contrary to the Holy Quran and Sunnah. Therefore, the rule laid down by the Shariat Appellate Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court does not lend any support to the plaintiffs. In the case of Muhammad Amin (1992 CLC 691), it was held by a learned Single Judge of this Court that the penalties provided under section 7-A of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 contemplate action for violation of subsection (1) of section 6 of the Ordinance, 1979 and since the building in that suit was constructed prior to promulgation of the said Ordinance, it was further held that no action can be taken against it or its owners. At present this is not the case of the plaintiffs that the buildings were raised prior to the year 1979. Mr. M. Aziz Malik has also referred to the case of Noor Muhammad (1992 CLC 729) where a learned Single Judge held that the provisions of the Ordinance, 1979 are applicable prospectively and not retrospectively and that construction of any building already completed prior to promulgation of the Ordinance would not attract provisions of section 7-A.
Again this is not the case of the plaintiffs in the present suits and, therefore, this case is also of no help to the plaintiffs.
25. Mr. M. Naimur Rehman, who has appeared on behalf of Intervener, namely, Shehri has referred to the case of Mst. Sardar Begum Farooqi and 6 others (1990 CLC 83) where a Division Bench of this Court, comprising of Ajmal Mian, CJ., and Mukhtar Ahmad Junejo, J. (as their lordships then were) held that the object of a status quo order is to maintain the subject-matter of the suit and not to alter it or to create a new situation. It was further held that the order of status quo passed in that case did not authorise respondent No. 1 to continue with the unauthorised construction of a multi- storeyed building in place of a residential Bungalow of ground plus one and that its object was to prohibit respondent No. 2, namely, K.B.C.A. From demolishing the unauthorised construction which had by that time already been raised. Section 7-A of the Ordinance, 1979 also came up for interpretation where it was observed by the learned Division Bench of this Court as follows:-- "A plain reading of the above section shows that when a building is constructed in violation of the provision of section 6, i.e. Without the approval of the plan or in deviation of the plan, respondent No. 2 has the power to seal the building or eject the occupants of such building demolish the same at the cost of the builder. We are inclined to in spite of the above provisions and in spite of the above it was not prima facie proper on the part of the have booked any flat/fats in favour of third persons.---
26. My attention was also invited the case of Abdul Razzak v. Karachi Building Control Authority and others (PhD 1994 SC 512) where several provisions of Karachi Building and Town Planning Regulations, 1979 in reference to Ordinance, 1979 came up for consideration. Following observation of the Full Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court is relevant for reaching conclusion on the point presently under discussion:-- ....The High Court after referring to the relevant regulations, concluded as under the object and the consideration for the rule requiring minimum open _spaces to be left in any building are thus to ensure safe and hygienic conditions of living for the citizens in general They do not concern any one individual alone The regulations contained in Chapters 7 and 8 ruelating to drainage and sanitation and fire precautions are similarly intended to ensure healthy and safe living for the public in general."
(Emphasis added).
17. We are inclined to concur with the above conclusion of the High Court. We may observe that the discretion given to the Authority under section 19 of the Ordinance or under Regulation No.16 to compound an offence or discretion given by Regulations Nos. 20 and 25 is subject to the well- settled principle of legal jurisprudence that discretion is to be exercised fairly and reasonable and not at the cost or prejudice of third parties.
We may also point out that there is marked distinction between a criminal liability under section 19 of tae Ordinance and a civil liability --under the Regulations to rectify irregularity/breaches. The authority may compound criminal liability but it cannot regularise a breach of the Regulations which is of the nature which has changed the complexion or character of the structure which was originally intended to be erected or of the plot. In such cases, it can be said that the authority has no discretion in fact and law. The plot in dispute was intended to have residential bungalow, it was not earmarked as flats' site------------.--- (Emphasis added.)
27. Section 23 of the Contract Act, 1872, makes all such agreements void, the object or consideration of which is unlawful. There are several instances incorporated in section 23 and under its illustrations which further envisage that where the agreement is forbidden by law or if it defeats the provisions of any law or is fraudulent or involves or implies injury to the person or property of another or if the Courts regard it as immoral or if it is opposed to public policy falls within the category of void agreements. It was strenuously argued on behalf of plaintiffs that nowhere in section 6, in particular, and nowhere in the provisions of Ordinance, 1979 the builders are forbidden to enter into any agreement with the purchaser prior to completion of construction and, therefore, the agreements between allottees and builders are not hit by the provisions of section 6(2) of the Ordinance 1979, which view is not correct. One of the condition provided in section 23 of the Contract Act is that if any contract is of such a nature that if permitted it would defeat the provisions of law then such agreement is unlawful and void. In the instant case, there is a specific prohibition imposed on the builders that no building as mentioned in subsection (1) to section 6 shall be occupied by any person or shall be allowed by the builders to be occupied by any person or unless on an application of the occupant or owner the Building Control Authority has issued occupancy certificate in a prescribed manner. Therefore, in order to obtain permission to occupy any building or its portion by any occupant or owner the first requirement is that such building should have been constructed strictly in accordance with the approved building plan as provided under section 6(1) of the Ordinance, 1979. The second condition of grant of permission to occupy a building is that an occupant or owner must have obtained occupancy certificate from the Building Control Authority. In the present case, the defendant/KBCA has successfully established that all the buildings were raised in clear violation of the approved building plan. The plaintiffs were not able to show that prior to occupying their respective flats/shops, either they or any of the builders obtained occupancy certificate from the K.B.C.A. In my view this provision was enacted in order to keep check on the illegal and unauthorised construction and to ensure that all the buildings are raised strictly in accordance with section 6(1) of the Ordinance, 1979. It may be due to this reason that under subsection (4) to section 6, the Building Control Authority was empowered to grant permission after it is satisfied that the building so constructed is consistent with the approved plan. It, therefore, settled that where a possession of any building or l its portion is delivered by a builder to an occupant, even through a written agreement, but without first obtaining occupancy certificate from the K.B.C.A. For a building which admittedly was constructed in violation of the approved building plan, it will amount to an agreement to defeat the provisions of Sindh Building Control Ordinance, 1979.
28. In several reported cases of our High Courts as well as of Indian High Courts, section 23 of the Contract Act, 1872 was considered. In Gauri Datt Pandey v: Bandhu Pandey and others (AIR 1929_ Allahabad 394), it was held by a learned Single Judge of Allahabad High Court that the provisions of Transfer of Property Act is to be read in the light of the Contract Act and that a contract, which is void because it was forbidden by law, does not become valid if the parties act strictly in accordance with the provisions of the said contract. In Mafizuddin Khan Choudhry v. Habibuddin Sheikh and another (AIR 1957 Calcutta 336), it was held by a Division Bench of Calcutta High Court after making reference to some thirteen (13) reported judgments that a person who is not the holder of the licence, where under the statutory provision a licence was to be taken before an article can be sold by any person, held that such person is not entitled to get a decree for recovery of money from the Court as allowing the claim of such person would amount to violating the statutory provisions made restricting the sale of such commodities to certain persons. In the case of Sita Ram (supra) the question involved was prohibition of movement of Gur under the Gur Control Order, 1946; the contract so entered was declared to defeat the provisions of the Gur Control Order in the following words:--- "(7) Mr. Hari Swarup, appearing or, behalf of the appellant, contended that the contract which was attempted to be enforced by the plaintiff was in the teeth of the provisions of the Control Order and whatever quibbing the plaintiff resorted to he could not get over the patent fact that his quibbings were merely vain attempts at defeating a provision of law. It was pointed out that under section 23 of the Indian Contract Act if the consideration or object of an agreement was of such a nature that if permitted it would defeat some provision of law then such at: agreement was unlawful. There can be no doubt that the agreement in the present case was of such a nature that if it was permitted to pass muster it would put at naught the provisions of the Gur Price Control Order. The contract in the instant case was certainly tainted with all that anti-social desire against which the Control Orders attempted to fight . . . . "
29. This Court has also considered legality of an agreement, the consideration of which is unlawful and void. In the case of Iqbal Hasan Burney and another v. Ameen Tareen (PLD 1967 Karachi 840), one of the issues was whether the contract made by the party for printing the copies was in violation of section 23 of the Contract Act as the same was forbidden by section 7 read with section 56 of the Press and Publication Ordinance, 1960. It was held that the contract to print as well as the alleged contract to bind and deliver the copies of publication became illegal when the condition precedent for authentication was not fulfilled. In the case of Abdul Razzak v. Karachi Development Authority (1991 CLC 1591) after referring to a portion of commentary from the Law of Contract (IIIrd Edition) by Shaukat Mehmood and after referring to the case reported in Kola Parti Venkatarareddi v. Kolaparti Peda Venkat Achalam (AIR 1964 AP 465), this Court held that every agreement of which the object or consideration is unlawful is void and that the consideration or object of an agreement is lawful unless, inter alia, it is of such nature that, if permitted it would defeat the provisions of any law or that the Court regards it as opposed to the public policy. Appeal filed against this view of a learned Single Judge of this Court was upheld in the appeal by a learned Division Bench of this Court (See HCA-112 of 1991 Abdul Razzak v. KDA). Recently, Lahore High Court has held an agreement to finance prosecution of two suits for pre-emption to be contrary to public policy and, therefore, void. See Inayat A.I Shah v. Anwar (1995 CLC 1907). In the case of Riaz Ahmed v. Dr. Amtul Hameed Koser and 8 others (1996 CLC 678), it was observed by a Division Bench of this Court that an agreement directed to finance or otherwise encourage litigation involving one person extending assistance to another in consideration of sharing in the prospective spoils of litigation being opposed to public policy was, therefore, found an unenforceable contract in line with the prohibition contained in section 23 of the Contract Act. Resume of all the case-laws above clearly indicates that where an agreement is made, even in absence of any clear prohibition in the law to execute such agreement, but if permitted to apply it would amount to defeat any provision of law or it is against public policy then, it is clearly permissible to a Court not to enforce it. In the circumstances of all these suits, I am of the considered view that since the plaintiffs were not able, prima facie, to show that their possession were not intended to defeat the provision of Ordinance, 1979, therefore, the equity does not lie in their favour. It is pertinent to observe that if the provisions of section 6(1) and (2) are read in conjunction with section 7-A of the Ordinance, 1979, it makes compliance of the subsection (2) to section 6 mandatory. In both subsections (1) and (2) to section 6 the word 'shall' has been used and the consequence for its non---compliance has been provided in section 7-A which includes any action including sealing of the building; ejectment of the occupants and demolition of the building at the cost of builder. It may be seen that the authority has been empowered to take all these actions "without prejudice to any other action" which, in my view, includes penal action as provided under section 19 of the Ordinance, 1979. All these three provisions of Ordinance, 1979 are fully attracted in all these cases. It is not denied that the person from whom the plaintiffs have acquired right of possession were builders who are defined in section 3(c) of the Ordinance, 1979 which means a person or body of persons including a society engaged in construction of a building on contract either as owner or grant of the owner for the purpose of transferring such building on hire or sale or on the basis of ownership. However, from this definition all such persons engaged as masons or other artisans have been excluded: The term "building" has been defined in section 3(d) of the Ordinance, 1979 as any building or part thereof including all fittings and fixtures, installations, signs and display structures of the building.
Only those buildings were excluded from this definition which are to be notified by the Building Control Authority. Therefore, all the buildings involved in these suits are buildings within the meaning of aforesaid definition and, therefore, strict compliance of the provisions of section 6(1) and (2) was required to be made by the builders as well as occupiers. I am fortified in my view by the cases of Abdul Razzak and Sardar Begum as discussed earlier.
30. It is settled law that in order to obtain an interim injunction of prohibitory nature, a plaintiff is required to show that he has a good prima facie case; that the balance of convenience is in favour of grant of injunction and that E in case of refusal, such plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss and injury. In order to prove a good prima facie case, the plaintiff's in the present suit were required to show that there is a prima facie existence of legal right to retain the possession of suit premises and that there is a threatened infringement of their legal rights on the part of the defendants. (See Muhammad Matin v. Mrs. Dino Manekji Chinoy PLD 1983 Karachi 387). I have already held that these sub--leases or any other agreements, written or implied, tentatively appear to have been executed in order to defeat the provisions of Ordinance, 1979, and thus, these transactions of sale/purchase may fall within the prohibition of section 23 of the Contract Act. Therefore, the case of the plaintiffs goes out of the concept of good prima facie case. On the point of second ingredient i.e., balance of convenience, it was successfully established by the K.B.C.A. That all buildings involved in these suits were raised in glaring violation of the approved building plans; that such buildings were raised, in many cases, after obtaining the order of "status quo" from the Civil Courts and in violation of these orders of status quo. Therefore, in my tentative opinion, it would be public-at-large in the first place, and secondly the civic agencies who have to suffer great inconvenience for the buildings constructed in violation of the approved plans and Building Regulations. Hence, the balance of convenience does not lie in favour of the grant of interim injunction. As far as the question of irreparable loss and injury is concerned, suffice to observe that the plaintiffs are entitled to seek recovery of their invested money from the builders in addition to the damages/compensation, if permissible from such Builders and/or K.B.C.A.
31. As a result of the above discussion, all the above fifteen (151 applications filed in the suits mentioned above are dismissed with the following observations:---
(i) That the K.B.C.A., before taking any action as contemplated under section 7-A of the Ordinance, 1979 will afford personal hearing to the builders and/or affectees and would extend sufficient/reasonable time to comply direction, if any, issued under section 7-A to the occupants/affectees. The allottees may not have a legal right to occupy the property at present but may have a legitimate interest in the outcome of a decision and, therefore, ought to be heard on the basis principle of natural justice, which has attained prime consideration in general administrative matters as well as injustice delivery system.
(ii) That the Chief Controller of Buildings, K.B.C.A., shall ensure early institution of criminal proceedings against the contravenors, builders, or K.B.C.A. Officials, whoever they may be, as provided under section 19 of the Ordinance, 1979. For the said purpose, the Chief Controller shall submit his reports, month-wise, to the Registrar of this Court.
(iii) The Member, Inspection Team (MIT) is directed to look into the matter that how different suits, the subject-matter of which are construction of G buildings involving lacs of rupees, are being filed before the Civil Courts of the first instance when prima facie, valuation of these suits appears to be above Rs. 5,00,000. The MIT is further directed to issue necessary guidelines to the Civil Judges in this regard after obtaining leave from the Hon'ble Chief Justice.
(iv) It is regrettable to note that the Courts are not receiving necessary and proper assistance from the K.B.C.A. In effective disposal of the cases arising out of building construction disputes.
Apparently, one of the reason is the shortage of Law Officers at the K.B.C.A. It was informed, during the hearing, that there is neither any Law Office nor any place for the Law Officers to sit and work within the premises of K.B.C.A. Building. It is humanly impossible for four Law Officers to conduct approximately fifteen hundred suits pending on the original side of this Court. It is, therefore, earnestly desired that the strength of Law Officers with other facilities of para legal assistance be immediately increased. Let this matter be placed before the Chief Secretary, Government of Sindh.
Office is directed accordingly. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.