Case Details

Citation(s)
1993 SLG 2109 1993 SLD 2109 = 1993 PLD 631

Civil Suit No.370 and C.M.As. Nos. 9396, 9450 and 9451 of 1M, decided on 14th July, 1993.
G.H. Malik, I

ARDESHIR COWASJEE and 9 others --- Plaintiffs

VERSUS

MUHAMMAD NAQI NAWAB and 5 others --- Defendants

Law:

Section:

This is an application by the plaintiffs to restrain the defendants Nos.1 to 3 , pending the hearing and disposal of the suit, from advertising, accepting from and opening a school at NoA/6, Bogra Road, Bath Island, Karachi (hereinafter referred to as "the property").

 

The defendants Nos.1 and 2 are the owners of the property. They leased it to defendant No.4, M/s. City School, for the purpose of running a school therein. The plaintiffs protested against the opening of such school on the ground that the entire area wherein the property is situated is a residential ,one and that the existence of the school would create a nuisance to the residents of area. In consequence of the protest by the plaintiffs and action taken by defendants Nos.5 and 6, the defendant No.4 was persuaded to leave the property and move elsewhere. However, as soon as the defendant No.4 vacated the property, the defendants Nos.1 and 2 let it out to defendant No.3 for the same purpose, viz. to open and run a school there, even though they were fully aware of the protest and the action taken against the defendant No.4 and were, in fact, parties to the previous litigation arising from the defendant No.4 attempting to run a school on the property. In the circumstances, it is claimed that running a school on the property would result in a nuisance to the plaintiffs, when every morning and afternoon over 700 students would descend upon and leave school causing a monumental nuisance by way of traffic jam, pollution by noise and Petrol fumes to say nothing of the loss of peace and quiet of the area inasmuch as there would be great deal of noise from the school when it is in session and shortage of water and choking of sewerage facilities. It is also claimed that the area in question being a residential one and use of the property therein for a purpose other than residential being in breach of a covenant in the leases granted by defendants Nos.5 and 6, the defendants, are liable to be restrained from using the property of running school thereon.

🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register