2004 PLP 1192 (YLR)

SABIHUDDIN AHMAD, J.

Notice is waived by learned counsel for the petitioner and this application is being decided alongwith Miscellaneous No.2600 of 2000.

2. By order dated 13-6-2000 this petition was disposed of upon the undertaking of learned counsel for respondent No.1 (KBCA), who stated that the building constructed by the respondent No.2 was raised without any plan being approved by the respondent No.1 and undertook that it would be demolished within two months. The undertaking was taken on record and the petition was disposed of accordingly. This application has been moved by one Asma Umer under section 12(2), C.P.C. contending that the order dated 13-6-2000 was obtained by the petitioner through fraud and misrepresentation in collusion with the respondents Nos.3 and 4 and by conceding material facts to the detriment of the applicant. The applicant claims to be a tenant of the respondents Nos.3 and 4 having been inducted into the building upon payment of substantial amount by way of Pagree. It is alleged that the respondents Nos.3 and 4 are attempting to dispossess her through filing this petition. The respondent No.3, however, who is the owner of the building has also moved the application mentioned at serial No.1 above, substantially seeking the same relief that has been prayed for by the applicant. The plea that the proceedings are collusive is therefore of no consequence. Neither the applicant nor the respondent No.3 have been able to show that the building in question had been raised after a plan having been duly approved by the respondent No.1. It is admitted that the construction was raised in 1984 when the Sindh Buildings Control Ordinance had come into effect. The only ground argued by Mr. Aleem Akbar Shaikh was that the petition was filed after delay of 14 years. It has been authoritatively held by the Honourable Supreme Court in Ardeshir Cawasjee v. Karachi Building Control Authority 1999 SCMR 2883 that no laches are attracted in such matters. Mr. K. A. Wahab, on the other hand, argued that the applicant had acquired valuable rights in- the property and the order was passed without notice to him. It is well-settled that in such matters even a transferee of all rights in the building is not entitled to any protection and reference may be made to the pronouncement of the Honourable Supreme Court in Muhammad Saleem v. Administrator, KMC 2000 SCMR 1748. In any event none of the learned counsel have been able to show that the order dates 13-6-2000 had been procured by any fraud or misrepresentation or that it was otherwise without jurisdiction. Accordingly both these applications are dismissed. However, one month time is granted to the applicant to vacate the premises on purely humanitarian consideration. H.B.T./S-13/K Applications dismissed.