' By this order I propose to dispose of the two applications being C.M.A. No,4375 of 1997 under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. And Civil Miscellaneous Application No,4611 of 1997 filed under section 151, C.P.C..
2. The facts leading to institution of the present proceedings, as are deducible from the respective affidavits and documents filed by the parties, are that the plaintiffs are owners, tenants and occupants of various offices in the building known as Ebrahim Estates situated at Plot No, D/1, Union Commercial Area, Blocks 7 and 8, Shahrae Faisal, Karachi, hereinafter referred to as 'Ebrahim Estates'. The adjoining Plot No,Z, Central Commercial Area, Blocks 7 and 8, Shahrae Faisal, Karachi, hereinafter referred to as the subject plot' is, owned by the defendant No,6. The Ebrahim Estates was constructed on the basis of and in accordance with building plan approved on 12-7-1979 and the structure of ground plus 5 stories was occupied after approval of completion plan on 3-1-1983.
It is averred in the plaint that the subject plot which is adjacent to Ebrahim Estates and although shown as part of area earmarked for commercial use in the master plan, was reserved for construction of Cinema and notified as such in the detailed plan prepared and notified for the concerned commercial area. It is further the case of the plaintiff that having noticed construction activity upon the subject plot and excavation for the purpose of laying foundation, they brought their concern to the notice of defendant No,6 through letter dated 10-5-1997. A copy of the letter was endorsed to the defendants Nos.1 to 3 expressing their concern and requiring them to take necessary legal action in the matter. The architect of the defendant No,6 respondent instantly to the said letter asserting that the construction was being done in accordance with approved building plans and further offered to meet the plaintiffs for redress of their grievances, if any. The proposed meeting did take place but could not bring any positive result. On 27-5-1997, the plaintiffs through another letter requested the official defendants Nos.1 to 3 for action against the on-going construction at the subject plot and sought a copy of the approved plan. The plaintiff further sought professional opinion of an Engineer who reported that the constructions activity on the subject plot was a serious and immediate threat to Ebrahim Estates. After failing to elicit any response, the present proceedings were filed by the plaintiffs seeking following reliefs:--
(i) A declaration that the conversion of the Plot ZCCI from amenity to commercial is illegal and contrary to public interest;
(ii) a declaration that the Plot No, ZCCI is an amenity plot and that the same cannot be utilized for any other purpose;
(iii) a declaration that the approval, if any, of the building plans by defendants Nos.1 to 3 for construction on the Plot No, ZCCI is contrary to law and of no legal effect;
(iv) a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from raising any construction on the Plot No, ZCCI for any purpose other than amenity purpose;
(v) a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from approving, or allowing any construction on the Plot No, ZCCI.
(vi) Setting aside the approval of building plans, if any as illegal, mala fide and contrary to public interest.
(vii) Grant costs.
(viii)Any other relief that is just and proper in the circumstances;
3. Along with the plaint, an application for interim injunction listed at Serial No,1 was also filed seeking restraint against all construction activity whatsoever on the subject plot. Initially, by way of ad-interim order dated 4-3-1997, the defendant No:6 was directed to maintain status quo but such order was recalled on 14-7-1997 in the absence of plaintiffs' counsel mainly on the basis of reports dated 12-7-1997 submitted by the Deputy Controller of Buildings (Vigilance-1) and the defendant No:3 which are as follows:-- "Subject: Report Required by Hon'ble High Court Sindh in Suit No,869 of 1997 on Plot No,ZCC-1 Blocks 7 and 8 CC Area, KCHS Union Ltd., Karachi.
' The site on Plot No,ZCC-1 Blocks 7 and 8 C.C. Area K.C.H.S. Union was inspected with the concerned D.C.B. And A.C.B. Zone and it was observed that the owner has cast R.C.0 retaining wall for support of existing building on adjoining Plot No,D-1 (Ebrahim Estates) and apparently no effects i.e cracks or settlement were observed. However, due to excavation on such plot the foundation of another rear adjoining building (Anum Blessings) on Plot No, ZCC Blocks 7 and 8 C.C. Area, K.C.H.S. Union have been exposed that may cause any accident due to expected heavy moon soon rainfall season.
(Sd.) 12-7-1997 DY. CONTROLLER OF BUILDINGS (VIGILANCE)-I ' No violation against approved Architectural plan was observed as on site shuttering for slab of first basement is under progress. Further, more it is informed that K.B.C.A. Has granted approval for two basement ground seven upper floors. Besides the concerned consulting Licence Structural Engineer and Licence Architect have also submitted stability certificate.
(Sd.) 12-7-1997 DY. CONTROLLER OF BUILDINGS ZONE-XIII."
4. During hearing, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs has urged that under the Land Development Scheme of the area notified earlier, the subject plot was earmarked for construction of Cinema and the defendant No,5 K.D.A. Had unauthorisedly allowed conversion of the user of land for commercial purpose. It is next urged on behalf of the plaintiff that the proposed constriction on the subject plot, besides being violative of the ban imposed by the Government of Sindh upon construction of multi-storeyed structure beyond ground+ four floors and was also opposed to the Building Control Regulations which prescribe construction ratio up to 1:3. It is further urged that the excavation of land for foundation of the proposed construction over the subject plot has caused damage to the existing structure of Ebrahim Estates and unless restrained through interim injunction, further damage was likely to be caused.
5. Elaborating his submissions, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs has referred to lay out plan of Central Commercial Area, Blocks 7 and 8, Karachi Co-operative Housing Societies Union Limited showing therein that the subject plot measuring 2937 sq. Yards was earmarked for use as Cineme.
A certificate issued on 2nd July, 1997 by A. Rehman, Executive Officer of the defendant No,4 Union has also been referred to support the contention that the subject plot was earmarked for a Cinema. But was subsequently converted into commercial plot and a revised plait for Growid Mezzanine +Four upper floors was approved by the defendant No,5 K,D.A. On 8-4-1990. Besides the learned counsel has referred to two documents filed by the defendant No,6, along with its counter- affidavit as Annexures D and D-1. The first document is a letter dated 25-10-1986 written by the defendant No,4 to the Director, Master Plan Department, K.D.A. Mentioning therein that the subject plot was auctioned by it in the year 1963 for construction of cinema, but sub-lease in favour of the allottee was executed in Form C-1 which is meant for Commercial plots. It is further noted in the said letter that due to unwillingness on the part of the owner of the plot, to construct cinema thereon, the defendant No,4 Union had considered and extended its no objection for construction of Commercial Complex. The second document is copy of challan issued by the K.B.C.A. Evidencing payment of Rs,58,740 on 9-1-1988 by the defendant No,6 and another on account of "T.P. Charges for change of land use at the rate of Rs,20 per square yard". The learned counsel, with all the emphasis at his command, asserts that the two documents do evidently show that the subject plot was initially earmarked for use as cinema, but its user was changed to Commercial subsequent to construction of the Ebrahim Estates. On the basis of above, it is urged that the notified scheme for the area has been modified without compliance with the procedure prescribed by the K.D.A. Order.
In support of the above submission, learned counsel has referred to judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Abdul Razak v. Karachi Building Control Authority and others (PLD 1994 SC 512). It may be advantageous here to reproduce Article 52-A of the K.D.A. Order, which is as follows:-- "52-A.---(1) The Authority shall, immediately after any housing scheme is sanctioned by, or altered with approval of, Government, submit to the Commissioner the details including the survey numbers, area and location of each plot reserved for roads, hospitals, schools, colleges, libraries, playgrounds, gardens, parks, community centers, mosques, graveyards or such other purpose and the Commissioner shall notify such details in the official Gazette.
(2) The Authority or the Housing Society may at any time prior to utilization of any plot reserved for the purpose mentioned in subsection (1), apply to the Commissioner for conversion of such plot to any other purpose.
(3) The Commissioner shall, on receipt of an application under subsection (2), invite objections from the general public through a notice published in one English and one vernacular leading local daily newspaper and the objections, if any, shall be submitted to the Commissioner within 30 days from the date of the publication of the notice.
(4) The Commissioner shall, after considering the objections received under subsection (3) and hearing such persons as he may consider necessary forward his recommendations along with the application and other connected papers to Government for orders."
(5)
6. On the basis of the procedure laid down in the above-quoted provision of the K.D.A. Order, the following dictum laid down in the case of Abdul Razak (supra) was referred:- "It may be stated that in spite of presence of the above unambiguous Article in the order the successive Provincial Governments overlooked the above Article and converted amenity plots into commercial or residential plots and thereby denied to the residents of Karachi inter alia parks and playgrounds which contributed towards environmental pollution in the city. A tendency has also developed to convert the use of a residential plot into commercial or instead of constructing residential units in the form of bungalows to erect flats."
7. In support of his second submission, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, besides referring to the averments contained in the affidavits, has relied upon certificate issued by an Architect on 22-6- 1997, filed as Annexure-F with the plaint, and has also referred to the photographs of the site. On the basis of such submissions, the learned counsel asserts that the defendant No,6 may be restrained from continuing with any construction activity over the subject plot.
8. The next submission of Mr. Faisal Arab on behalf of the plaintiffs is that the proposed structure shall be violative of the ban imposed by the Government of Sindh through Notification dated 2-12- 1993 upon construction of buildings beyond ground four floors within the jurisdictions of Karachi Division. The learned counsel further submits that as to the rule laid down in the case of Multiline Associates v. Ardeshir Cowasjee and 2 others (PLD 1995 SC 423), with regard to power vesting in the Building Control Authority and/or the Government to compound or waive restriction upon construction of additional floors, the provisions of Act XXIV of 1994 were not pointed out to the Bench. For such reason, the learned counsel further submits that the construction proposed to be raised by the defendant No,6 is unlawful and the building plan for structure beyond 4th floor could not be permitted by the Karachi Building Control Authority.
9.Mr. Abul Inam, appearing for the defendant No,6, while replying to the arguments of Mr. Faisal Arab, has submitted that the sub-lease in respect of the subject plot was executed in Form C-I on 11-11-1965 by the defendant No,4 Union in favour of M/s. Gem. Corporation; in June, 1984, Site Plan in respect of the subject plot was issued by the defendant No,4 Union, followed by its letter dated 22- 11-1985 to confirm that the subject plot was commercial. Induced by such representation, the defendant 6 purchased the subject plot on 15-5-1985 from M/s. Gem. Corporation. On 23-9-1986, proposed Building Plan submitted by the defendant No,6 was forwarded by the defendant No,4 Union to the K.D.A. On 9-1-1988, conversion charges were paid by the defendant No,6. On 29-5-1989, Building Plan for construction of commercial complex consisting of Basement +Ground +04 Upper floors was approved by Karachi Building Control Authority, where after the defendant No,6 applied for sub-division of the subject plot which was approved on 16-8-1994. On one of the subdivided portions of the subject Plot bearing No, ZCC measuring 1440 square yards, 8 storeyed building including Mezzanine floor was raised, whereas the other portion No, ZCC/I measuring 1440 sq. Yards is sought to be constructed now. In respect of portion No, ZCC/I, approval of plan, from Architectual point of view, was accorded by K.B.C.A. On 27-10-1996 whereas the Building Plan was approved on 12-2-1997 for construction of two basements +grounds +07 floors (Commercial). The learned counsel submits that in all the said documents, the subject plot is referred and treated as commercial plot. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the defendant No,6 that the Master Lay-out Plan, which was prepared by defendant No,4 Union in respect of the entire area and was approved by K.D.A., showed reservation of the Central Commercial Area, Blocks 7 and 8 for commercial purpose. The lay out plan for the commercial area which shows reservation of the subject plot for use as Cinema does not bear approval by K.D.A., but was a sort of detailed drawing prepared by the defendant No,4 Union. Moreover, use of plot for cinema is a commercial use, and therefore, the present case was distinguishable from matters where conversion of amenity plots was attempted. It is further urged by Mr. Abul Inam that the entire action has been brought with mala fide intention of not allowing the defendant No,6 to develop and use his property. In the submission of learned counsel for defendant No,6, the use of subject plot as cinema may rather cause nuisance for the entire area and in view of the changed complexion of the locality, after construction of Shaheed-e-Millat Road, overhead bypass, the subject plot cannot be used as cinema. The learned counsel further submitted that the concept of modern city planning, inter alia, envisages orderly arrangement of parts of the city into residential, commercial, industrial and amenity etc. So that each part could perform its functions with minimum cost and conflicts. It is further urged by Mr. Abul Inam that the plaintiffs themselves have been using Ebrahim Estates for commercial purpose and construction of Ebrahim Estates besides being a seven storeyed structure, is also violative of the Plot Ratio required to be maintained by the Karachi Building Control Regulations for construction of buildings. As to the allegation of damage caused to the Ebrahim Estates, the learned counsel has referred to the column Lay-out Plans approved by the Building Control Authority for proposed construction over the subject plot. The learned counsel submits that the basement columns could be erected at the distance of 6 feet from the structure of Ebrahim Estates as per Building Regulations. However, the defendant No,6 had excavated the land for construction of basement columns at a distance of 12 feet from the building of the plaintiffs. No damage whatsoever, according to the defendant No,6, had been caused to the foundations or structure of Ebrahim Estates which, in any event, had been provided additional protection by the defendant No,6 through construction of a retention wall. As to the next submission of tile plaintiffs' counsel regarding ban on construction of multi-storeyed building beyond 4th floor, the learned counsel for the defendant No,6 has placed on record summary put up before the then Chief Minister of Sindh on 16-7-1996 and the approval accorded by him to the following proposal:-- "7. After detailed discussion, Committee recommended the following: 7.1 The ban on high rise buildings should be lifted as far as Shahrah-eFaisal is concerned.
7.2 For the present the plot ratio 1:4 should be allowed on Shahrah-eFaisal.
7.3 K.D.A. Should come up with a policy and if needed legislation to enforce proper maintain of the high rise after their completion."
10. According to the learned counsel, the ban on construction of high-rise was imposed through notification, dated 2nd December, 1993 issued by the Housing Town Planning and Environmental Control Department, Government of Sindh, and the same stands waived after approval of the above-quoted summary by the then Chief Minister of Sindh whose orders are to be treated as the order passed by the Government by virtue of Rule 7 of the Sindh Government Rules of Business.
Such authority vesting in the Chief Minister was duly recognised in the case of Multiline Associates (supra) in the following terms: "In the Sindh Government's Rules of Business 1986, while describing the powers of the Chief Minister it is provided that any order passed by the Chief Minister or any authority to whom he has delegated such power shall be deemed to be the order passed by the Government. It is so stated in rule 7, Part III of the Rules of Business mentioned above. Such order of the Chief Minister cannot be called in question on the ground that it is passed in deviation of the Regulations because there is no such deviation. It is a separate and independent statutory power of the Sindh Buildings Control Ordinance, 1979, if it is not inconsistent with other provisions of the Ordinance."
11. The learned counsel has also referred to a recent judgment by Division Bench of the Lahore High Court in the case of Dr. Miss Hajira Abdullah and others v. Lahore Development Authority, Lahore and others reported in PLD 1997 Lah. 464 to contend that right to enjoy and use the property is guaranteed by Article 23 of the Constitution and the defendant No,6 can lawfully use the subject plot in a manner which he thinks is suitable and beneficial to him. In any event, it is urged that the defendant No,6 can raise construction up to fourth floor without causing violence to the ban.
12. On behalf of defendants Nos.1 to 3, Mrs. Zahida Naqvi has opposed the grant of injunction adopting the arguments of Mr. Abul Inam. I may further note here with regret that the defendant No,4, despite having been served, did not file any affidavit nor has placed any record before the Court. On behalf of defendant No,5-K.D.A., Mr. M. Ibrahim Dasti dict not have time to attend the matter and Mr. A.K. Memon who remained present on behalf of Mr. Dasti throughout the hearing made statement that he was not aware of the facts of the case, and therefore, did not advance arguments.
13. I have heard the learned counsel and with their assistance gone through the record. The Master Lay-out Plan in respect of the entire scheme shows that the area in question was reserved for commercial use. The Plan submitted by the defendant No,4 Union to the Federal Government which is owner of the land, after approval of the defendant 5 K.D.A. Does not contain bifurcation of the commercial area into plats or earmarking of any plots therein for particular commercial use. The detailed Lay-out Plan of the commercial area appears to have been prepared by the defendant No,4 Union subsequently, and seemingly, was not sent to the defendant No,5 K.D.A. For approval.
While paramount object of modern city planning is to ensure optimum comforts for the residents by providing maximum facility and civic amenities, the said object must always be kept in view by the public functionaries which are entrusted with the job of town planning. It is also true that a person intending to acquire property for self-use, invariably keeps in view, the environments and general scheme of the concerned area to avail benefits, advantages and privileges in accordance with individual requirements. Besides, deviation from the planned scheme is bound to bring discomfort and inconvenience to others. At times, even the public utility services may fall short of the requirements resulting in public suffering. Keeping such aspect in mind, it is generally imperative upon all the public functionaries to ensure implementation of the notified scheme without change. In the present case, however, in the absence of positive evidence, as may be led by the parties at the appropriate stage, provisions of Article 52-A of the K.D.A. Order, 1957 cannot be pressed in service nor can its strict compliance be asserted for the reason that the Master Lay-out Plan approved by defendant No,5 K.D.A. Does not show internal bifurcation and earmarking of the plots within the commercial area. Thus, any one acquiring property within the concerned commercial area on the basis of the same approved by K.D.A. Knew in advance that the plots therein would be used for commercial purpose. In the circumstances, in my view the plaintiffs had sufficient notice and, in any event, cannot object to use of the subject plot for commercial purpose.
14. Another aspect highlighted by the learned counsel for the defendant No,6 is that running business of cinema is also a commercial activity as opposed to amenity purposes. The change of user from cinema to general commercial complex, therefore, does not amount to change of the user in its strict sense. It is true that cinema business is run for earning profit. In the present social set-up, existence of cinema in the vicinity, creates greater nuisance. Moreover, use of land for running cinema, normally involves utilization of more public amenities besides causing traffic congestion and influx of different classes of people. Without going into such aspect, in my view, the cinema business is a commercial activity and tentatively speaking, change of user from cinema to commercial complex does not amount to modification of the nature of the subject plot. I am supported in my above view by the ordinary meaning of the word 'commercial' as stated in various dictionaries. To quote, in Black's Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition) at page 270 words 'commercial' and 'commercial activity' are stated to mean as follows:-- "Commercial.--Relates to or is connected with trade and traffic or commerce in general; is occupied with business and commerce; Commercial activity.-Term includes any type of business or activity which is carried on for a profit.
Activity relating to or connected with trade and traffic or commerce in general."
15. In Ballentine's Law Dictionary (Third Edition) at page 222 word 'Commercial' is defined as follows:-- "Commercial.--Pertaining to the purchase and sale or exchange of goods and commodities and connoting as well forms of, and occupations in, business enterprises not involved in trading in merchandise; in a broad sense, embracing every phase of commercial and business activity and intercourse."
16. In the Concise Oxford Dictionary (8th Edition) at page 227 the word 'commercial' and 'commercialise' are described as follows:-- "Commercial having profit as a primary aim rather than artistic etc. Value; Commercialize (1) exploit or spoil for the purpose of gaining profit."
17. As already stated, cinema business is primarily run for earning profit and, in any event, it is not included in the recognized amenity purposes stated in the Building Regulations framed by the Karachi Building Control Authority.
18. It is also pertinent to note that the law does not prohibit modification of notified scheme altogether. Alteration in a scheme can be made for the good of the people-at-large; again minor changes and alterations, which do not change nature of the scheme or so radically change it as to render the sanctioned scheme materially different, can indeed be effected and no grievances against such change or deviation can be made. Such principle was clearly recognised in the case of Mian Fazal Din v. Lahore Improvement Trust and another PLD 1969 Supreme Court 223. Applying the above analogy, even if user of the subject plot is assumed to have been changed from cinema to commercial such modification does not change the general nature of the scheme. However, the deposit of payment of fee by the defendant No,6 for change of land use has its significance and cannot be ignored.
19. As to the ground of likelihood of damage to the foundation and structure of Ebrahim Estates, perusal of structural Plan for the proposed construction on the subject plot, shows that foundation for raising columns, is designed at the distance of 12 feet from the Ebrahim Estates and such columns have already been raised. As per statement made at the bar, by Mr. Abul Inam, retention wall has been constructed to provide additional protection to the structure of Ebrahim Estates. The damage, if any, may already have been caused, which cannot be undone through grant of prohibitory order restraining further construction work. While, it has come on the record that the excavation done for laying foundation by the defendant No,6, has exposed the foundation of another adjoining structure, the plaintiffs cannot base their claim upon such factum. In view of such situation,. I had asked all the learned counsel to suggest name of a qualified Engineer to assess the damage, if any caused to the structure of Ebrahim Estates due to the construction activity over the subject plot. However, the learned counsel were unable to reach consensus in that regard and had requested for appointment of a qualified Engineer by the Court to evaluate the damage. In the circumstances, the Staff Officer, Chief Engineer (South), Pakistan Public Works Department, Block 48, Pakistan Secretariat, Karachi is appointed as Commissioner to visit the site, assess the damage, if any, already caused to the foundation/structure of Ebrahim Estates and/or is likely to be caused to the plaintiffs' building. Such report be submitted after visiting the site, after notice to the parties and in presence of their representatives as may choose to remain present.
The official defendants Nos.1 to 5 are, however, directed to depute responsible officer to remain available at the time of inspection and provide such material as may be necessary and be required by the said Commissioner. The report should be submitted by the Commissioner within one month of this order. The fee of Commissioner is tentatively fixed at Rs,5,000 which shall be deposited by the plaintiffs with the Nazir of this Court within one week.
20. In view of the order of appointment of Commissioner for assessment of damages, as above, the plaintiff is not entitled to any prohibitory order against defendant 6 for the present.
21. As to the next submission of Mr. Faisal Arab, regarding ban on the high rise construction in Karachi, reliance has been placed on the notification, dated 2nd December, 1993. It seems that the Building Plan in respect of the subject plot has been approved by the defendants Nos. 1 to 3, without properly advertising to various factors and aspects. The above-referred notification was issued due to scarce availability of utilities in Karachi and to obliterate sufferings of the general public living in Karachi. The above-referred notification has been issued by the Government of Sindh which being the controlling and rule-making authority could lawfully issue instructions as above. Such notification carries the force of law as per the dictum laid down in the case of Pakistan v. Shaikh Abdul Hamid PLD 1961 SC 105. Evidently, the defendants Nos. 1 to 3 cannot act in deviation from the said notification for the benefit of favouring an individual or at the cost of other people.
Besides, according to the plaintiffs, the Plot Ratio, for construction over the subject plot too.; has not been maintained in accordance with the Plot Ratio Standards prescribed by the K.B.C.A. In Schedule H, Part II of the Town Planning Regulations notified by it. The reliance, in reply, upon approval of summary by the then Chief Minister of Sindh on 15-8-1996, relaxing ban on high-rise buildings abutting Shahrah-e-Faisal, in my view, cannot be pressed into service since a notification issued by the Government of Sindh cannot be modified even by the Government itself through Administrative orders. Administrative orders, stand at a slightly lower pedestal from the notifications and the established principle of law is that a subordinate legislation cannot destroy or undo the superior law. For such view, I find support from judgment in the case of Sher Muhammad v. The Chairman, Federal Land Commission and others reported in 1989 MLD 4286, which judgment was affirmed by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Chairman, Federal Land Commission v. Sher Muhammad reported in PLD 1990 ,SC 626. The defendant No,6, in the circumstances, cannot raise construction beyond 4th floor unless it is established through evidence that such construction can lawfully be raised. The argument with regard to the plaintiff's building having been constructed beyond the limits prescribed by the notification, dated 2nd December, 1993 or being in violation of the Plot Ratio Standards of K.B.C.A., loses significance since the Building Plan for Ebrahim Estates was approved on 12-7-1979, prior to enforcement of the Building Regulations. The plaintiff has thus been able to . Establish prima facie case for injunction to restrain the defendant No,6 from raising construction beyond 4th floor on the subject plot. Even 'otherwise, the defendant No,6 is, admittedly raising construction for disposal of the various commercial units therein to general public, which shall create third party interest and may expose the plaintiffs to multifarious litigation. In the circumstances, it is ordered that the defendant No,6 shall not raise any construction beyond fourth floor during pendency of this suit but may raise construction up to 4th floor at his own risk and in case of creation of third party interest, should put the transferees/allottees on notice about the present proceedings, clarifying that the construction up to 4th floor is raised by the defendant No,6 at his own risk and shall be liable to be pulled down in the event of the plaintiffs succeeding eventually. Subject to the above, the order passed by me on 1-8-1997 stands modified.
22. In view of the above order Civil Miscellaneous Application No,4611 of 1997 has become infructuous and is disposed of accordingly.