1. ' This is a suit for declaration, injunction and damages. Case of the Plaintiff is that he is owner of a single storeyed building, situated on Plot No,S.B.4, Survey No,92/4, (Old Survey No,B-4, III/B/3)
2. Saddar Bazar Quarters, Inveratity Road, Karachi. Where on the western side of the said plot and building, there is Plot No,91, Sheet No,B-4 (Old Survey No,109-A), Survey Sheet No,G-4) Defendants Nos.1 and 2, who are wives of defendant No,3, claim to have purchased the same alongwith a building thereon. Defendants got the building vacated from various tenants, who were occupying the same and proceeded to demolish and excavate the same. During the process of the demolition and excavation the defendant did not take, adequate steps to prevent damage to the Plaintiffs adjacent building. They also damaged the footpath and the Gutter pipe line and the wall of the building of the plaintiff which bears the load of the .Roof and also the shop in possession of the plaintiff and cracks have appeared in the building. The damage to the Gutter has resulted in flow of refuse and dirty water, under the foundation of the Plaintiffs building and has made it dangerous. The Plaintiff approached defendant No,4, K.B.C.A., who informed that defendants Nos.1 and 2 have not got any plan approved from them and that they had given out that they were making minor repairs to the building. Hence the plaintiff filed this suit and prayed for declarations, injunctions and compensation.
3. ' Summons and notices were issued to the defendants. The first summon was returned by the bailiff with the endorsement that he went to Hotel Sarwan which is owned by the defendants. Manager of the Hotel by name Sohrab refused to accept the same and said that he could not do so without permission of his master. The bailiff, however, gave a copy to the Manager and asked him to intimate the defendant No,3 about it. Thereafter the summons and notices were repeated but could not be served on any one of the first three defendants. On 3112-1989 Mr. Ishtiaq Ali alongwith Mr. Iftikharuddin Siddiqui, filed power for defendants Nos.1 and 2 and undertook to file power for defendant No,3. It was ordered on this date that the defendants shall not raise any construction in violation of the approved plan. On 31-1-1990, it was stated by Mrs. Iftikharuddin Siddiqui that the defendants would make necessary repairs, constructions amendments and would restore the property in suit to its original condition within a period of two months. Mr. Zafar Alam, Advocate for Plaintiff stated that after two months, he would inspect the property and after he is satisfied, he would withdraw the suit. Hence the case was adjourned to a date in office to be fixed after two months. When the case came up for hearing before this Court on 18-31990, Mr. Iftikharuddin, Advocate, stated that notice of C.M.A. No,1371/90 which is an application for contempt of Court be issued directly to the defendants. As obviously he was not supporting the action taken by the defendants in violating the undertaking given by him and the order of the injunction. Consequently the case was adjourned to a date in office and notice of C.M.A. No,1371/90 was ordered against the defendants directly. The defendants did not file any written statement nor obtained further time to file the same and consequently the Additional Registrar debarred all the four defendants from filing written statement and has fixed the case for final disposal.
4. ' Mr. G.R. Warsi, Advocate, who has appeared for Mr. Iftikharuddin Siddiqui, states that defendant No,3 was not served and no Vakalatnama was filed on his behalf by M/s. Syed Ishtiaq Ali and Co., and therefore, the Additional Registrar could not have debarred him from filing the written statement. The contention of Mr. G.R. Warsi, is not correct. On the one hand he is pleading for defendant No,3 and on the other hand he is saying that he does not represent defendant No,3 as no Vakalatnama was filed by M/s. Syed Ishtiaq Ali and Co., although on 31-12-1989 a clear undertaking was given by Mr. Iftikharuddin that he will file power for defendant No,3. Even otherwise I am satisfied that defendant No,3 has been sufficiently served with the summons and notices of this suit, because initially the summons and notices were given to his Manager by the Bailiff and service on Manager is good service at law. Apart from that defendant No,3 is none else but the husband of defendants Nos.1 and 2. The Advocate engaged by defendants Nos.1 and 2 must have been engaged by defendant No,3 or at least with his permission and knowledge. Lastly the interest being taken by Mr. G.R. Warsi to claim to be one of the partners of M/s. Syed Ishtiaq Ali and Co., in itself shows that defendant No,3 has been served with the summons and notices of this suit. No application for extension of time to file the written statement or to set aside the order of the Additional Registrar debarring the defendants from filing written statement has been made. The conduct of the defendants is most objectionable in that in spite of the undertaking given by Mr. Iftikharuddin Siddiqui on 31-12-1989, they have not made any repairs, constructions, amendments and have not restored the Plaintiff's property to its original condition within a period of two months.
5. The plaint is verified on oath and is accompanied by photostat copies of I the following documents:- "(1) Extract from Property Registrar.
(2) Site Plan.
(3) General Power of Attorney.
(4) Photographs of the Damages."
6. ' The above evidence of the Plaintiff has gone unchallenged and unrebutted.I, therefore, decree the Plaintiffs suit and grant the declarations and injunctions as prayed. I also grant compensation amounting to Rs,1,00,000. The cost will be borne by defendants Nos.1, 2 and 3.