1. Granted.
2. This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution is filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: "(a) That the respondent No,1 be directed to implement the statutory regulations requiring respondents Nos. 2 to 5 to leave 7' 6" space open to sky for the benefit of the neighbours/occupants for peaceful enjoyment of their right of Air and Light.
(b) That the approved plan for 600.91 square yards by the respondent No,1 is illegal and without lawful authority as the Respondents Nos.2 to 5 are the transferee from Muhammad Hussain only for 587.47 square yards.
(c) That the Respondents Nos.2 to 5 are carrying out the building works contrary to the provisions of the regulations and the relevant status and Respondent No,1 in collaboration with them are omitting to implement the same and the Building is being constructed in the manner inconsistent with the regulations and restrictions.
(d) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case."
' At the hearing of the petition, learned counsel for the petitioner, admitted that Civil Suit No, 350 of 1990 is already filed by the petitioner against the respondents claiming similar reliefs in respect of the construction raised on the plot. It is also an admitted position that in the above suit an application for temporary injunction was moved on which ad interim status quo order was granted but thereafter after hearing both the parties the ad interim injunction was vacated and the application for grant of temporary injunction till the pendency of the suit was rejected. Against the order rejecting the application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C., the petitioner preferred C.MA.
No,64 of 1990 which is still pending before the District Judge, South. The contention of Mr. Muhammad Ashraf Bhatti, learned counsel for the petitioner, before us is that the remedy by way of Civil Suit resorted to by the petitioner did not provide an effective remedy and, therefore, he is entitled to invoke the Constitutional jurisdictional of this Court for his redress. In this connection, the learned counsel relied on the case of Salahuddin and 2 others v. Frontier Sugar Mills and Distillery Limited, (PLD 1975 SC 244) and Anjuman-e-Ahmadiya Sargodha v. Deputy Commissioner Sargodha and another (PLD 1966 SC 639). In the first noted case, it may be mentioned that the civil suit was earlier filed by the parties seeking permanent injunction but the same was declined by the Civil Court and against that an appeal was preferred. Notwithstanding the filing of the civil suit, the petitioner in the above case filed a writ petition which was dismissed in limine by the High Court of Peshawar and against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court an appeal was preferred to the Supreme Court which was allowed and a writ of quo warranto was issued against the Managing Director of the respondent. The facts in the case of Salahuddin are totally different and have no relevance to the facts of the present case. It is quite obvious from the report of the above case that the relief of quo warranto which was granted by the Supreme Court in the above case could not have been granted in the civil suit instituted by the parties before the Civil Court and, therefore, in such circumstances the pendency of the Civil suit could not be treated as a bar to the institution of a writ petition under Article 199 of Constitution. Similarly, in the second case relied upon by the learned counsel, namely Anjuman-e-Ahmadiya Sargodha v. Deputy Commissioner Sargodha, the party who had invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court had not resorted to any remedy by way of civil suit and as such the observations made in the case are of no help to the petitioner in this case. In the case before us it is not disputed that the remedy sought in the writ petition can be granted to the petitioners in the civil suit which he has instituted in the civil Court. All that is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner before us is, that the order rejecting the application under Order 39, rules 1 and 2, C.P.C., for grant of temporary injunction was passed on wrong appreciation of facts and law and that remedy has already been resorted to by way of appeal against the order dismissing the injunction application, but till today it is not decided. These facts are not sufficient to attract the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution. In view of the pendency of the competent proceedings in the Civil Court, we are not inclined to interfere in the case in exercise of our Constitutional jurisdiction. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
' As a result of dismissal of the petition, Miscellaneous application is also dismissed.