| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1990 SLD 469 = 1990 CLC 628 |
Sindh High Court
Suit No.414 and Civil Miscellaneous Application No.2673 of 1989, decided on 7th September, 1989.
Presented By: Before Syed Abdur Rehman, J
Hussain Adil Khatri for Defenda.
Suit No.414 and Civil Miscellaneous Application No.2673 of 1989, decided on 7th September, 1989.
Presented By: Before Syed Abdur Rehman, J
Hussain Adil Khatri for Defenda.
SAYEED A. SHEIKH, ADVOCATE---Plaintiff
VERSUS
SIDDIQ and another---Defendants
Law: Easements Act (V of 1882)
Section: 4
Easements Act (V of 1882)--- ---S. 4---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), OXXXIX, Rr.1 & 2 & S.151-- Plaintiff's plea for ad interim injunction against defendant was that defendants' construction adjacent to plaintiff's house was in violation of Building Rules, inter alia, as the compulsory open space of ten feet, had not been left towards the plaintiff's plot and that the construction sought to be put up, had on its rear side windows and balcony opening on and overlooking the plot, land, courtyard and lawn of the plaintiff's house and thereby violating his right of privacy---Plaintiff's entitlement to ad interim relief---Plaintiff had failed to prove any definite instant of obstruction---Intrusion into privacy of plaintiff through the windows an balcony of the house in a big city cannot be readily accepted---Plaintiff would have to establish his right of privacy by leading evidence fulfilling the test lai down by Supreme Court in Fazle Raziq's case reported as PLD 1980 SC 193- Defendant, however having left open space less than the required one between construction and plaintiff's plot had not only violated Building Rules but as the approved plan---Courts, although, ordinarily do not grant injunction to construction which was nearing completion but in view of peculiar circumstance; interim injunction, restraining the defendant from raising any further construction towards plaintiff's side which was within ten feet of the boundary wall of plaintiff house, was granted---Such interim injunction, however, would not restrain defendant from raising construction on the remaining portion of the premises Interim injunction would not authorise defendant to raise any construction whatsoever in violation of the approved plan or the orders of the Building Control Authority---Question of demolition of any existing construction in violation approved plan was left to be taken up at the time of final disposal of suit. Yakoob Ahmad v. Tason Construction (Pvt.) Ltd. 1989 CLC 739 an Hawa Bai v. Haji Ahmad 1987 CLC 558 distinguished. Fazle Raziq's case in PLD 1980 SC 193 ref. Plaintiff in person. . Hussain Adil Khatri for…