1. MAMOON KAZI, J.--The petitioner has filed the present petition to restrain the respondent No.1 from raising construction on the plot in question in contravention of the building plan then approved by the respondent No.2. Pending final disposal of the petition, an application was filed under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. Seeking an interim order to direct the said respondent to demolish the unauthorised construction and to restrain him from letting out, selling or transferring any part of the said construction to any other person. An injunction was also sought by the petitioner for respondents Nos.4 and 5, i.e., Karachi Building Supply Corporation and Karachi Water and Sewerage Board respectively to restrain them from granting or sanctioning any facility or utility in the shape of electric, sewerage and water connections to the construction in question.
2. On 12-9-1991, when the said application came up for hearing this Court ordered maintenance of "status quo" pending final disposal of the petition. At the time of granting of status quo the Court appointed Nazir as Commissioner to inspect the site and submit his report. According to the report submitted by the Nazir dated 15-9-1991, the front side of ground floor in the building comprising of shops was complete. Five other floors had also been raised and wall-plastering thereof had also been completed. Electricity connection also appears to have been supplied but according to the Nazir, no meters had yet been installed. The' report of the Nazir shows that although structure had been raised by the said respondent but the building required finishing touches. It appears that respondent continued to raise construction in spite of the status quo order with the result that the present applications were filed seeking action against the said respondent for contempt of Court.
3. In the meanwhile, an application (C.M.A. No.1220 of 1993) was also filed on behalf of the said respondent seeking certain clarifications from the court as the respondent appeared to be of the view that there were no restrictions imposed by the Court in respect of raising of further construction. Permission was also sought for installation of lifts in the building and obtaining sewerage, electricity and gas connections. However, the said application remained pending and no order has yet been passed thereon. Be that as it may, but upon the said applications being made before the Court, Official Assignee was appointed Commissioner to inspect the site and submit report. The report of the Official Assignee was submitted on 24-10-1993, which shows that further work was carried out on the building and even electricity, gas and water connection were obtained. When the Official Assignee had visited the building, six floors had been constructed by the respondent. The Official Assignee has also taken photographs of the building which show that the same is almost complete.
4. Although, Mr. Muhammad Sharif, learned counsel for respondent No.1, has resisted the above applications but the two reports submitted by the Nazir and the Official Assignee dated 15-9-1991 and 24-10-1993 respectively, hardly leave any doubt that the respondent No.1 has violated the status quo order passed by this Court. No doubt, further orders in this connection were also passed by the Court dated 14-i1-1991, 2-6-1992 and 2-3-1993, but the status quo order earlier passed still remained intact and operative and, the same was not modified so as to materially alter the situation. The said respondent was clearly prohibited by the -status quo order from raising further construction and from transferring, leasing and letting out any portion of the building in question.
5. No doubt, so far as the facilities such as electricity p connection, sewerage connection and water connection are concerned, injunction was sought only against respondents Nos.4 and 5 and not against respondent No.1, but notwithstanding the same it was clearly intended by the status quo order that such facilities in the building should not be provided. The responsibility, therefore, in this regard would clearly rest on the shoulders of the respondent No.1, since it is nobody's case that such connections were provided to the building by respondents Nos.4 and 5: So far as the letting out of the building is concerned, it is an admitted position that one of the shops has been let out, although, according to the petitioner, three shops have been let out after passing of the status quo order. Mr. Muhammad Sharif, has placed reliance upon the case of Dr. Md. Mobarak Ali v. Prof. Md.
6. Allarakha PLD 1971 Dacca 293, wherein it was held that the Courts in cases of breach of injunction as contemplated by Order 39, rule 2(3), C.P.C. Must apply their judicial mind to consider how far the order of maintaining status quo was in any manner violated but the said case can hardly be invoked in the circumstances enumerated above.
7. In the result, we are prima facie of the view that the respondent No.1 is guilty of committing breach of status quo order earlier 'passed by this Court. He is therefore directed to show-cause as to why action under the provisions of Order 39_ rule 2(31. C.P.C. And for contempt of Court may not be takes against him. The said respondent may file his reply on 17-11-1993.