Case Details

Citation(s)
2000 SLG 1907 2000 SLD 1907 2000 CLC 925
Sindh High Court
High Court Appeals Nos.99 and 100 and Civil Miscellaneous Applications k Nos.454 and 1480 of 1999, decision dated: 7-12-1999. dates of hearing: 4th, 11th, 18th, 23rd and 30-11-1999
HAMID ALI MIRZA AND S.A. RABBANI, JJ
Dr. Farogh Nasim, Muhammad Ali Sayeed and Mubarak Ali Siddiqui for Appellants. Qazi Faez Isa for
Respondent No. 1

MUHAMMAD USMAN.

VS

K.B.C.A,

Law:

Section:

Sindh Buildings Control Ordinance (V of 1979)--- ,----S. 12---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr.l & 2---Interim injunction, grant of---Approved site plan, deviation from-,-Plaintiff while constructing his building deviated from approved site plan---Injunction was sought against the Authority for not interfering in such construction of the plaintiff---Contention raised by the plaintiff was that such deviations were compoundable at the cost of certain penalty---Validity---Where deviations, were of such nature which the Authority could have approved as a part of original plan under the Regulations, regularisation in such matter was ex post facto condonation ---One could not deviate from the approved plan deliberately with a view to get the same regularised afterwards on payment of penalty---Where the plaintiffs had made deviations from the approved plan, they were not entitled to the assistance of the Court in shape of equitable relief of injunction to continue such deviations. ORDER The appellants claim to be the owners of Plot No.43-1/A, Block VI, P.E.C.H.S.„Karachi, on which they are raising a housing project. For the said housing project they got approved a building plan from Karachi Building Control Authority (K.B.C.A.). .However, during construction, they made certain deviations from the approved plan and the staff of the K.B.C.A. interfered with the construction on the ground of deviation from the approved plan. One of the appellants, therefore, filed Civil Suit No. 1596 of 1998 for declaration and injunction. In that suit, the plaintiff/appellant filed an application for interim injunction and the K.B.C.A., the defendant in the suit, also filed some application. Both these applications were disposed of by the learned Single Judge through his order, dated 9-4-1999, which has begn called in question in these appeals. 2. The appellants have made the record of these appeals unusually voluminous by filing copies of a number of documents, but they did not care to file copies of the applications on which the impugned order was passed. However, from the impugned order, it can be gathered that the plaintiffs in the suit were seeking interim…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492