Pakistan Case Law← Search
1993 MLD 1836

DIRECTORATE OF SMALL INDUSTRIES, GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN through

Citation1993 MLD 1836
CourtSindh High Court
Case No.Suits Nos.303 and 338 of 1989
Date1992-05-25
Judge(s)Wajihuddin Ahmed
ResultOrder accordingly

ORDER

' In the suit the plaintiff has come up with the following prayers:-- "(i) Declaration that the plaintiff is the tenant/lessee of the defendants in respect of Shop No.7 at International Departure Lounge, Terminal No. 3, Karachi Airport, Karachi.

(ii) Permanent injunction restraining the defendants from disposing of or allotting or transferring the shop to any other person by inviting tender or otherwise.

(iii) Permanent injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing from or otherwise interfering with the rights of the plaintiff to occupy and to use the said shop.

(iv) Cost of the suit.

(v) Any other relief which this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

' Learned counsel for the defendants has submitted a statement in this case in which the following submissions are made:-- "(2) That the first prayer cannot be granted as the plaintiff had executed a licence agreement for the period of one year which has expired and which document he has concealed and did not file with the plaint but the same has been brought on record by the defendants. The plaintiff has not come with clean hands and this suit is liable to be dismissed as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court."

3. That as far as the prayers Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned we hereby submit as under:---

(a) The plaintiff will be at liberty to participate in the open tender whenever it is called in regard to the shops in the New Jinnah Terminal Karachi Airport, Karachi and if he/they succeed to be a highest bidder, they will be accommodated therein accordingly.

(b) The defendants will not dispossess the plaintiff without due process of law from his present shop or interfere with his business till the plaintiff participates in the open tender and succeeds as highest bidder, as explained hereinabove or fails to participate in the open tender in terms of clause (a) above."

In view of the abovesaid statement the learned counsel for the plaintiff agrees that in terms of Order VI, Rule 1, C.P.C. the parties do not appear to be at variance on any issue and a decree in terms of clauses (a) and (b) of the above-quoted statement can be passed. By consent, therefore, such decree is passed with no order as to costs. With the decree in the suit all or any of the applications pending in it also stand disposed of.

Cited by 1 case

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
Disclaimer·Privacy·Terms·Search