| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2001 SLG 3037 = 2001 SLD 3037 = 2001 CLC 99 |
Court of Special Judge, Karachi
Suit No. 100 and Civil Miscellaneous Application No.677 of 1999, heard on 29th October, 1999.
Presented By: Mushtaq Ahmed Memon, J
R.F. Virjee for Plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 10. Abdul Karim Siddiqui for Plaintiff No. 11. Kausar Amin for Defendants Nos. l(a) to (c). Latifur Rehman Sarwari for Defendant No.2.
Suit No. 100 and Civil Miscellaneous Application No.677 of 1999, heard on 29th October, 1999.
Presented By: Mushtaq Ahmed Memon, J
R.F. Virjee for Plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 10. Abdul Karim Siddiqui for Plaintiff No. 11. Kausar Amin for Defendants Nos. l(a) to (c). Latifur Rehman Sarwari for Defendant No.2.
GHULAM RASUL NAEEM and 9 others---Plaintiffs
VERSUS
Mrs. SHERNAZ and another---Defendants
Law: Sindh Building Control Ordinance, 1979
Section: 14
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: O.XV, R.1
Sindh Buildings Control Ordinance (V of 1979) S. 14---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XV, R.1---Disposal of suit---Absence of any triable issue---Withdrawal of notice subject-matter of the suit---Effect---Suit property was declared dangerous by the Authorities and proceedings under S.14 of Sindh Buildings Control Ordinance, 1979, were initiated---Suit was filed against such proceedings---Where during pendency of the suit notice issued by the defendant was withdrawn no triable issue remained in the field and the suit was to be disposed of under O.XV, R.1, C.P.C.---High Court directed the Authorities to initiate proceedings under S:14 of Sindh Buildings Control Ordinance, 1979, de novo, if the circumstances so required---Suit was disposed of accordingly. ORDER 1. Disposed of as infructous in view of the order, proposed to be passed at serial No.2. . 2. I have examined the plaintiffs Nos.3, 4, 5, 9 and 11, besides Muhammad Essa, attorney of defendants Nos. l (a) to (c) and Zahid Nadeem, Deputy Controller of Buildings, Zone-17. All the five Plaintiffs state that no notice prior to the one dated 25-1-1999 was served on them and hearing was not accorded to any of the plaintiffs in terms of section 14 of Sindh Building Control Ordinance, 1979. The attorney of defendants Nos. l(a) to (c) states that the subject property was declared dangerous in the year 1979 and was purchased by his principals in the year 1995. According to the attorney of defendants No's.l (a) to (c), 42 tenants were in occupation of the subject building and 26 tenants, out of the above, have already vacated the tenements in their respective occupation upon payment of compensation by the said Defendants. It is…