Case Details

Citation(s)
1991 SLD 1855 = 1991 CLC 1856
Sindh High Court
Constitutional Petition No. D-141 and Miscellaneous Applications Nos.321 and 322 of 1991, decided on 26th March, 1991.
Presented By: Before Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui CJ. and Imam Ali G. Kazi, J
Muhammad Ashraf Bhatti for Petitioner.

MUHAMMAD USMAN------------------------- Petitioner

VERSUS

DEPUTY CONTROLLER OF BUILDINGS and 4 others------------------------------------------------------------------ Respondents

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 199

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)--- ---Art. 199----Civil Procedure Code (v of 1908), OXXXLX, Rr.l & 2 and S.9 ----Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of ---Pendency of civil suit----Remedy sought in Constitutional petition could be granted to petitioner in civil suit---Petitioner's main contention was that civil Court's order rejecting application for an ad - interim injunction was passed without appreciation of facts and law and that remedy had already been resorted to by way of appeal against order dismissing application for interim injunction, but till today same had not been decided-- Such facts were not sufficient to attract jurisdiction of High Court under Art.199 of the Constitution --High Court, in presence of COW, tent proceedings in. civil Court, declined interference in that case in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction---Petition was dismissed in circumstances. Salahuddin and 2 others v. Frontier Sugar Mills and Distillery Limited, PLD 1975 SC 244 and Anjuman-e-Ahmadiya Sargodha v. Deputy Commissioner, Sargodha and another PLD 1966 SC 639 ref. Muhammad Ashraf Bhatti for Petitioner. ORDER Granted. This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution is filed by the petitioner with the following prayers: "(a) That the respondent No.l be directed to implement the statutory regulations requiring respondents Nos. 2 to 5 to leave 7 6" space open to sky for the benefit of the neighbours/occupants for peaceful enjoyment of their right of Air and Light. That the approved plan for 600.91 square yards by the respondent No.l is illegal and without lawful authority as the Respondents Nos.2 to 5 are the transferee from Muhammad Hussain only for 587.47 square yards.   That the Respondents Nos.2 to 5 are carrying out the building works contrary to the provisions of the regulations and the relevant status and Respondent No.l in collaboration with them are omitting to implement the same and the Building is being constructed in the manner inconsistent with the regulations and. restrictions. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. At the hearing of the petition, learned counsel…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register