1. This order will dispose of Civil Revisions Nos. 185 of 1998 to 190 of 1998, under section 1.15 read with Order 43(1)(r), C.P.C., which are directed against the order, dated 29-9-1998 passed by the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Karachi South in C.M.As. Nos. 16 of 1998, and C.M.As. Nos.37 of 1998 to 41 of 1998 whereby the order passed by the learned Vth Senior Civil Judge, Karachi South granting temporary injunction to the applicants/plaintiffs, on the application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. Dated 25-5-1998 was set aside.
2. The applicants in these revision applications are in possession of portions of plot bearing Survey number AKI-125-2/2/D situate at Lyari, Karachi, for which according to them they are paying development charges, annual rent, survey fees and other taxes. The respondents served notices on them to remove construction and clear the site within 24 hours. Therefore, they filed suits. Although the applicants must have filed separate suits with separate numbers, yet in these revisions copy of only one plaint, in Suit No.245 of 1998 has been filed, which contains prayer for-following relief:-- (a)To permanently restrain the defendant, its legal heirs, agents, representatives, attorneys, employees, officers, and/or any other person or officer acting on his behalf from ejecting and removing the plaintiff from suit premises and from demolishing or breaking any construction of this plot situate at Liyari Quarters Khadda Karachi and also not to interfere in the legal rights of the plaintiff,.
3. (b)Ad interim injunction is also prayed.
4. (c)
5. (d)
6. Alongwith the plaint, the applicants/plaintiffs' filed applications under Order 39, Rules, 1 and 2, C.P.C.
7. Praying for temporary injunction which was allowed but the said order was set aside by the learned Appellate Court vide the impugned order.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicants and perused the record.
9. Learned counsel for the applicants mainly contended that the respondent had regularised the possession of the suit property in their favour and they had been paying necessary taxes to the authorities concerned, which the learned Appellate Court ought to have appreciated. He also submitted that the respondent did not comply with the legal procedure as laid down under the Sindh Public Property (Removal of Encroachment) Act, 1975.
10. A perusal of the impugned order shows that these points were agitated and were taken into consideration by the learned Appellate Court while passing the impugned order. As is borne out from the record, the entire plot being an amenity plot was reserved for establishment of school and the respondent wants to raise school building on the said plot. This Court had also appointed the Official Assisgnee vide order, dated 13-11-1998, to make site inspection. Accordingly, he (the official assignee) in his report dated 18-11-1998 has stated, inter alia, as follows:-- "3.The disputed plot is situated on Shah Waliullah Road in Lyari. The entire plot was found vacant and without any kind of residential or commercial construction. It appeared that there was some construction on the plot which was found demolished and Malba (demolished material) was lying on the plot. The plot was found with freshly constructed boundary walls on three sides which were not yet completed. On fourth side of the plot there was no boundary wall but from that side there is construction on the adjoining plot alleged to be plot of college, hence there appeared to be no necessity of boundary wall.
(4) On the disputed plot there was camp of KMC in a tent. Some material such as mixer machine of KMC was available at the plot. The watchmen of KMC were sitting on the plot, keeping watch over the plot. It was quite evident that possession of the plot was with KMC. The applicants in cases has assembled at the time of inspection on the plot but there appeared no indication of their possession over the plot."
11. Having examined the impugned order carefully, in my humble view, the learned Appellate Court has not committed any material irregularity entailing miscarriage of justice. The impugned order does not suffer from any jurisdictional defect as described in section 115, C.P.C. The discretion exercised by the learned Appellate Court was neither arbitrary nor perverse or fanciful. Therefore, respectfully following the case-law reported as Shehzada Muhammad Umer Beg v. Sultan Mehmood Khan and another (PLD 1970 SC 139), Administrator, K.M.C. Jhelum v. Syed Zulfiqar A.I (NLR 1978 Civil 8581,, and Muhammad Akram v. Project Director, People's Works Programme (NLR 1978 Civil 1201), these revisions, having no merits are dismissed in limine.