' AJMAL MIAN, J.---By this common order we intend to dispose of the above two petitions which are directed against identical orders both dated 10-4-1997 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh in Constitution Petitions Nos.D-549 of 1997 and D-550 of 1997 and upon Civil Miscellaneous Nos.1247 of 1997 and 1250 of 1997, admitting the aforesaid Constitution Petitions for regular hearing for the reason that the points raised in the petitions require consideration and granting interlocutory orders in the following terms upon aforementioned miscellaneous applications : "2. By an interim measure, we order that no external construction in violation of the approved plan will be raised and any internal construction, which is not in accordance with the approved plan if not subsequently approved, will be pulled down. Such undertaking was also given by the learned counsel for the respondents on 13-3-1997."
' The petitioners, who were the petitioners in the above Constitution petitions and who are residents of the area known as Civil Lines Quarters, have filed the present petitions for leave to appeal against the aforementioned interlocutory orders.
2. The grievance of the petitioners before the High Court was that respondent No,12 in the above two petitions was constructing a multi-storeyed building consisting of hollow plinth with five storeys and nine flats on each floor of three bed-rooms on Plot No,20/1, Sheet No,:CL-6, Civil Lines Quarters, Karachi, measuring 3254 sq.Yards (which is the subject-matter of Civil Petition No,90-K of 1997 arising out of the Constitution Petition No,D-549 of 1997), whereas twelve flats of three bed- rooms on each of the floor on Plot No,12, Sheet No,CL-8, Civil Lines Quarters, Karachi, measuring 4300 sq. Yards (which is the subject-matter of Civil Petition No,91-K of 1997 emanating from Constitution Petition No,D-550 of 1997), instead of ground plus one which is permissible as per notification, dated 1-9-1988 issued by the Deputy Commissioner (South), Karachi, the representative of the lessor (i.e, The Board of Revenue, Sindh). It was also the grievance of the petitioners that the aforesaid on-going construction was in violation of the approved building plans and the building regulations. In the above factual background, the petitioners filed aforementioned Constitution petitions. Alongwith the same they also filed aforestated miscellaneous applications for interlocutory orders, which were granted in the above terms.
3. The case of respondent No,12 was that the construction was being made in accordance with the approved plans and as per para. 2(i)(e) of Schedule G, Pt.2, P.1 of the Karachi Building and Town Planning Regulations, 1979, hereinafter referred to as the Regulations, which allows high-rise flats on plots of land measuring 3200 sq. Metres or more. It is also their case that the aforesaid notification, dated 1-9-1988 of the Deputy Commissioner has no legal basis. They further denied that they have violated approved building plan or the Regulations.
4. The High Court had appointed the Official Assignee as the Commissioner, who submitted his separate reports both dated 20-3-1997 in respect of under-construction building.
5. In support of the above petitions Mr. Liaqat Merchant, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing for the petitioners, has vehemently contended that the learned Judges of the High Court, instead of prohibiting respondent No,12 from raising further construction, allowed the same which will lead to complications as third party's interest will be created upon completion of the flats and handing over of the same, and then it will not be possible to restore status quo ante even if the petitions are allowed. According to him, the Karachi Building Control Authority could not have granted permission for above multi-storeyed building without providing infrastructure in the form of water supply, sewerage lines, electricity, Sui gas and other amenities etc. As the original scheme of Civil Lines Quarters was conceived of on the basis of ground plus one storey and, therefore, the aforesaid amenities were provided on the above assumption. Reliance has heavily been placed by him on the judgment of this Court in the case of Abdul Razak v. Karachi Building Control Authority and others (PLD 1994 SC 512, particularly on paras. 20 and 21).
' On the other hand, Mr. Ghulam Hussain Abbasi, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court appearing for respondent No,12, has vehemently urged that the petitioners have no cause of action as there has not been any infringement of their right. According to him, since building plan has been approved by the competent authority, the petitioners have no locus standi to assail the same. His further submission is that respondent No,12 have invested huge capital on acquiring the plots and raising constructions and they have already booked most of the flats for sale. He has strongly relied upon another judgment of this Court in the case of Multiline Associates v. Ardeshir Cowasjee and 2 others (PLD 1995 SC 423, particularly paras. 24 and 25 thereof).
6. It seems that the building, which is the subject-matter of Civil Petition No,91-K of 1997, is more or less structurally complete as is evident from the above report of the Official Assignee, dated 20-3- 1997. Whereas the building, which is the subject-matter of Civil Petition No,90-K of 1997, has not yet been structurally completed but substantial structural work has been carried out. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, respondent No,12 have expedited the construction work after the petitioners raised an objection to the aforesaid constructions and particularly after filing of the above Constitution petitions, which is denied by respondent No,12.
7. Be that as it may, we are not inclined to stay the construction at this stage but, in our view, it will be just and proper that while maintaining aforementioned interlocutory orders of the High Court, we may add that respondent No,12 in each of the above petitions shall not execute any lease or document transferring the flats or creating any charge or encumbrance nor they will part with the possession of the flats till the disposal of the aforestated Constitution petitions pending in the High Court. The High Court may dispose of the above Constitution petitions within six months from today so that controversy is resolved without any delay.
8. We have refrained ourselves from expressing our views on the merits of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties as the matter is still pending before the High Court and any observation made by this Court may prejudice either of the parties.
9. We would, therefore, convert the above petitions into appeals and dispose of the same in the above terms. However, there will be no order as to costs.