Case Details

Citation(s)
2000 SLG 2231 2000 SLD 2231 2000 MLD 66
Sindh High Court
Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 6716 in Suit No. 1296 of 1997, decided on 5th June, 1998
RANA BHAGWAN DAS, J
Khawaja Shamsul Islam for Plaintiffs. Shahid Jamil Ahmad Khan for Defendant No. 1. Nemo for Defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 6. Suleman Kassam for Defendant Nos. 4 and 5.

FAIYAZ HUSSAIN QURESHI and others--Plaintiffs

VS

KARACHI BUILDING CONTROL AUTHORITY and others

Law:

Section:

Easements Act (V of 1882)--- ----S. 7---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2---Suit for claiming right of easement with application for temporary injunction--­Contention of defendant was that some minor violations of approved plan by the Building Control Authority took place which hardly affected alleged easement rights of the plaintiff---Effect---On report of Nazir after site inspection Building Control Authority was directed not to regularise the violations and defendants would be under a legal duty to bring construction strictly in accordance with approved plan failing which building could be demolished by Building Control Authority in the discharge of their statutory functions. ORDER Plaintiffs who claim right of easement through this suit in relation to the property constructed by defendants Nos.4 and 5 on their plot seek a restraint order restraining defendants Nos.4 and 5 from continuing with the construction on their plot or creating third party interest in relation thereto. The suit as well as the injunction application were filed on 9th October, 1997. 2. In the written statement as well as the counter-affidavit stand taken by the contesting defendants is that the construction had been completed before the filing of the suit and only building was being coloured. With regard to creation of third party interest, it is said that defendants do not intend to sell any portion of the property in question. 3. Counter-affidavit is followed by an affidavit-in-rejoinder alleging gross violation of the approved plan and construction in the portion reserved for compulsory open space. It is further the case of the defendants that construction is purely for residential purposes on the ground floor and two floors in accordance with building plan duly approved by K.B.C.A. 4. On plaintiff's C.M.A No.7896 of 1997 for inspection of the site Nazir of Court was appointed as Commissioner to inspect the suit premises after notice to…
🔒
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